Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Speed Limits and Road Signs (Metrication)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now give an estimate of the total cost of changing speed limit and other signs relating to distances and dimensions when the metric system is adopted.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): I cannot at present add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 21st April. Until we have completed our consultations with interested bodies, I shall not be able to make a firm estimate of the total cost of converting these signs to the metric system.—[Vol. 782, c. 20–21.]

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that there is some public feeling against the cost of changing the signs?

If his mind is made up over land miles, will he be certain that he does not introduce a system of metric nautical chart, which will further add to the cost and confusion?

Mr. Marsh: I am almost certain that the question of nautical miles will not be within my responsibility. The problem with road signs is that, given the background of the decision to go metric, it would be almost impossible to have one set of measurements in imperial measure.

Road Bridge, Defford

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the dangers to road traffic and pedestrians at the single line traffic road bridge carrying the A440 over the Birmingham-Bristol main railway line at Defford, Worcestershire; and, in view of the fact that improvement was approved for road double tracking and widening some while ago, whether he will now sanction the necessary expenditure for remedial works in 1969–70.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): We are aware of the situation on this principal road, but the proposed improvement has not sufficient priority to be undertaken for some time.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that trains are now passing beneath this hump-back, single-track road bridge at speeds of up to 100 miles an hour and that there is very little protection to prevent vehicles


going over on to the railway line? Does he appreciate that unless he takes some remedial action pretty soon there may well be an appalling accident here?

Mr. Brown: I cannot go any further than I have already gone. The county council clearly feels that other schemes for road programmes for this year are far more urgent than this one.

Hull-Beverley Trunk Road

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport why the Beverley ring road was included in the Humberside Feasibility Study; why the study did not cover the new Hull-Beverley trunk road which was originally planned some 20 years ago; and if he will make a further statement on his proposals for this trunk road.

Mr. Bob Brown: The Humberside Study prepared by the Central Unit for Environmental Planning took account of both the planned diversion of the Hull-Beverley trunk road and the related Southern bypass of Beverley. There have been no further developments on these schemes since my Answer to the hon. Member on 9th June, 1969.—[Vol. 784 c. 179.]

Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the new trunk road from Beverley is not shown? Can he say when he expects this trunk road to be built, because without it a ring road is useless?

Mr. Brown: There is some misunderstanding on this question, because there was no ring road as such envisaged. A principal road link between A1079 and the A164 north west of the town is in preparation for the early seventies at an estimated cost of £400.000. Work will start on a short eastern bypass from Figham to Groveshill later this year at an estimate cost of £120,000. Both schemes are the responsibility of the East Riding County Council.

Humber Bridge

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the development of preparatory work necessary prior to the start of the construction of the Humber Bridge.

Mr. Bob Brown: The Humber Bridge Board, which is responsible for

the design and construction of the bridge, met last week and decided to instruct its consulting engineers to carry out detailed design and prepare estimates.

Mr. Wall: While welcoming the Government's decision about the bridge and to re-examine the road network, could the hon. Gentleman say something about the financing of the preliminary work on the bridge and the construction of the bridge itself?

Mr. Brown: The bridge will be financed by a loan to be repaid from toll revenue. No Government grant is envisaged.

Sir C. Osborne: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Lindsey County Council is utterly opposed to the building of the bridge until the roads between Grimsby and Immingham to the Midlands have been completed? Would he please bear in mind the representations of this local authority?

Mr. Brown: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will bear these representations in mind.

North Orbital Extension (Hertfordshire)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects the public inquiry on the North Orbital extension in Hertfordshire to take place.

Mr. Bob Brown: Later this year.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this inquiry should have been held last September? Does this delay represent a possible change of heart on the part of the Government, or will my hon. Friend honour the pledge given to me by the late Mr. Stephen Swingler when he was Minister of State, namely, that there would be no shelving of the project and that the North Orbital extension would be built in any event, whatever happened to the 'D' ring road?

Mr. Brown: I thought that I had made this point quite clear the last time I answered a Question on the subject. The reason for the delay is that we have had to await completion of a traffic survey. This data is now being analysed and evaluated. I emphasise that there is nothing which indicates that we have departed from our intentions.

M6 (Great Barr Interchange)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Transport when the Great Barr interchange on the M6 will open; and when the full dualing and flyover schemes between this interchange and the Birmingham city centre on the A34 will be completed.

Mr. Bob Brown: The Great Barr interchange and the dualing of A34 from the interchange to Birmingham City boundary should be completed by mid 1970. Responsibility for the improvement of A34 from the city boundary to the city centre rests with the local highway authority. Much work on the provision of dual carriageways and of grade separation has either been completed already or will be completed during 1970; the remainder, apart from a length of mile from Newton Row to Lancaster Place, is programmed but is unlikely to be ready before late 1971.

Mr. Price: Does not my hon. Friend realise that this road is already one of the worst congested in Birmingham at peak hours? When the whole of the south-hound traffic of the M6 is poured into it, this will make it particularly difficult. What is he doing to close the 18-month gap between the plans for the A34 and the M6 which he has now revealed?

Mr. Brown: We are proposing to absorb traffic off the M6 into Birmingham without an intolerable over-load on the A34 by three means. First, traffic for the north-west, west and south-west of Birmingham will be diverted at Ray Hall junction to convenient exits on the M5. Secondly, if the need is demonstrated, traffic for the city centre could be temporarily diverted via M5 and A41 to avoid congestion on the A34. Thirdly, further relief will be afforded about mid-1971 when the Gravelly Hill interchange and part of the Aston expressway are open to traffic.

Road Works (Disturbances)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to insert special provisions in contracts let for motorways in urban areas to reduce to a minimum disturbance to local residents caused by dust and alterations to the subterranean water level.

Mr. Bob Brown: As explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) in reply to his Question on 6th March, all roadworks contracts let by or on behalf of the Department, already contain provisions covering these matters. Much as I regret it. roadworks of the magnitude now taking place in the Birmingham area must inevitably cause some disturbance. But if my hon. Friend has information that the degree of disturbance at any particular place is unnecessary I will gladly look into the matter.—[Vol. 779; c. 167–168.]

Mr. Price: Will my hon. Friend accept that "some disturbance" is a considerable under-statement when applied to what is happening in part of my constituency, where the speed at which lorries used in the construction of the motorways travel causes so much dust that many of my constituents have to wash their curtains and furnishing fabrics every other day in order to keep them clean? Will he look into this matter to see whether water-spraying could be tried to keep the dust down?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend and I have had considerable correspondence on this matter. It is my impression that the contractors are doing everything possible to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the residents, particularly near the "prefabs" in this area. I assure him that we will certainly have another look to see whether it is possible by water-spraying to minimise nuisance.

"Give Way" Signs

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the increase in the number of serious accidents now taking place at crossroads marked with "Give Way" signs where previously there were "Halt" signs; and if he will reconsider his general policy over "Give Way" signs.

Mr. Bob Brown: Preliminary results of a limited survey in Warwickshire indicated no worsening of the position at T junctions but a substantial increase in accidents at some crossroads. The sample was small and we are now looking carefully at the results and particularly the nature of the sites concerned to see whether other factors—such as siting of signs—are involved.

Mr. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would be suicidal to do anything other than stop at most "Give Way" signs, as many people have unfortunately found to their cost? In the circumstances, can the hon. Gentleman say what are the advantages of the "Give Way" signs? Why cannot we go back to the older and much more safe "Halt" notices? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Brown: If the survey is anything to go by, clearly motorists have not got the message that in many circumstances it is suicidal to do anything other than halt at "Give Way" signs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why not say 'Halt'?"] I do not think that at this point in time, on this small survey, it is reasonable to talk about altering policy. Clearly we must have a lot more investigation of the subject.

Road Building Programme

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is now taking to ensure that the planned programme of road building in the current financial year will be implemented.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about progress in implementing the planned programme of road building.

Mr. Marsh: The greater part of this programme consists of schemes already in progress. The remainder, expected to start during the year, are subject to some factors not entirely under my control, such as the completion of statutory procedures or receipt of satisfactory tenders. Motorway and trunk road schemes are continuously monitored by critical path and other analytical techniques and any possible corrective action is taken. Principal road schemes are similarly monitored but responsibility for them rests primarily with the local authorities.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that when I raised this Question on 14th April I drew his attention to the fact that over the last five years we had lost about £60 million of road building because of administrative slippage, and he referred to new controls being brought into effect? Can he say what these new controls are and how effective he thinks they will be?

Mr. Marsh: This is largely a question of critical path and road network analysis. As I said when the hon. Member asked the Question before, we do not think this has been a programme as overoptimistic as last year's was, and I have no reason to believe that it will not be met.

Mr. Ridsdale: In Essex the Government are spending half of what they spent on highways in 1964–65. Will he make sure, in implementing this year's programme in Essex, that there will be no delay?

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry indeed about the position in Essex. It may, of course, be to some extent due to the fact that the Government are spending twice as much nationally as the previous Government were in 1964.

Mr. Eadie: Would my right hon. Friend care to give the House the record of the building programme of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, compared with the building programme of this Government?

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry, but it is impossible to hear what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Eadie: I asked my right hon. Friend if he would care to give the House the record of the road building programme of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite compared with the road building programme of this Government.

Mr. Marsh: I think it would be a source of depression for everybody here present to give the programme of hon. and right hon. Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—but the fact is that the present Government's record, compared with that of the party opposite, is that it is six times as large as that of ten years ago and twice as high as when that party left office.

Mrs. Thatcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept also that this Government's record on road taxation is that it is three times as much?

Mr. Marsh: Well, as the hon. Lady will be very well aware, there has been no real relationship between road taxation and road expenditure since a right hon. Member on the benches opposite changed the system—I think, in 1936.

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment.

A229 Accidents (Chatham-Maidstone)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have taken place on the A229 Chatham to Maidstone road in the last two years; and how many of them were at substantially the same place as previous accidents.

Mr. Bob Brown: In the two years up to 30th April, 1969, there were 72 personal injury accidents on the A229 between Chatham and Maidstone. Fifty-one of them were at substantially the same places as previous accidents.

Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware that this shows virtually no improvement since the time I asked this Question just over two years ago, and that the hon. Gentleman's predecessor at least had the grace to promise that there would be some improvement? This, surely, has not taken place. Will this Minister now take steps to do something?

Mr. Brown: I would remind the hon. Member that the highway authority for this road is Kent County Council. This is a principal road and the council is the responsible authority for it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Tories wrong again.

Mossley Crossroads

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the numerous accidents at Mossley crossroads, if he will provide adequate warning signs at the junction.

Mr. Bob Brown: Signs and safety measures at this junction are primarily matters for Cheshire County Council as highway authority. Warning signs are already provided. I understand the Council is considering other improvements.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Minister aware that what he said just now is not good enough? The town clerk of Congleton Council wrote to the Minister in January, 1967. There was a fatal accident at this crossroads as recently as Whitsun. What thought has he given to this? Will he consider realigning the

road, or having a one-way system, or traffic lights? How many fatal accidents have there got to be before something is done?

Mr. Brown: I will not refer to the recent fatal accident because that is sub judice. The Ministry's divisional road engineer suggested improvements to visibility at both corners of Reades Lane, and I understand that the county council is now considering possible major road improvements and an application of traffic management techniques.

A4 (Maidenhead-Reading)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking upon recommendations made by the county surveyor of Berkshire County Council in relation to conditions on the A4 between Maidenhead and Reading.

Mr. Bob Brown: The county surveyor has reported on conditions on the A4 between Maidenhead Thicket and the Wiltshire boundary. Recommendations for improving signs and carriageway markings between Maidenhead and Reading will be implemented as soon as possible; consideration is being given to his other recommendations on this length.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, by common consent, this is an excessively dangerous stretch of a very dangerous road, and that this report deals with a number of very useful and practical things? Would he be so good as to speed up consideration of the recommendations, because the words "as soon as possible" do strike iron into the soul?

Mr. Brown: I would not disagree with the earlier part of the supplementary question. I would say of the report that it is extremely comprehensive and very detailed, and, clearly, it is going to be necessary to give it some careful consideration. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no delay at all in taking a decision.

M1 (Safety Fences)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Transport on what criteria crash barriers are being erected along a short section of the M1 motorway between Luton and Hemel Hempstead but not on other similar sections of the motorway.

Mr. Bob Brown: On that section of M1 the particular road conditions and high volume of traffic now justify the use of safety fences within the terms of our present policy. We are reviewing the criteria and will consider in due course whether safety fences should be installed on other lengths.

Mr. Smith: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are far more accidents of the cross-over variety in the 7 miles north of the Newport Pagnell service area than there are between Luton and Hemel Hempstead? Does not he think that this stretch should be given greater priority than the area mentioned in the Question?

Mr. Brown: I cannot comment on the fact quoted by the hon. Member. We shall have to consider to what extent the new criteria are met before barriers are installed. We must, of course, be satisfied that this is the best possible use of our limited resources.

Trunk Road Schemes (Intermediate Areas)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Transport what priority is to be given to intermediate areas, particularly the South Yorkshire coalfield, in the trunk road schemes which form part of the recently announced £200 million rolling programme.

Mr. Bob Brown: Schemes announced for preparation will be considered for a place in the road programme when their preparation has reached a stage at which their costs and benefits can be assessed in detail and their relative priority determined. This will apply equally to schemes in the intermediate areas, including those in the South Yorkshire coalfield.

Mr. Hooley: Does not my hon. Friend think that the intermediate areas deserve something more than "equally", and will he consider giving them priority, since communications are an essential feature of setting up economic activity in these areas?

Mr. Brown: We can give priority only if the schemes in those areas attract high priority, taking account of all the benefits that they offer.

Motorway Fences (Home Grown Timber)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Transport what is the average price per cubic foot delivered of imported and home grown timber, respectively, currently being used in motorway fencing programmes; and what steps he is taking to assist the balance of payments problems by increasing the use of home grown timber above the level of 28 per cent. of the present consumption figure.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): Current average prices per linear yard erected on site are 20s. 6d. and 22s. 6d. respectively. The aim of Government contracting is to obtain the best value for money. To discriminate against imported timber would be contrary to our international trade obligations.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that there is a considerable quantity of timber available for use for this purpose and that it would obviously be in the national interest to make further use of it than has been made hitherto?

Mr. Carmichael: Where the price is right home grown timber get preference, but when on a large outlay there is a difference of 2s. per linear yard and where international trade obligations apply it is difficult to discriminate totally in favour of home timber.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the selection of sites for the Channel Tunnel termini.

Mr. Marsh: I hope to do so soon.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that he wrote to me on 8th December last year saying he would hold an inquiry to settle not whether there should be a Channel tunnel but where the terminal would be should one be built? Does he realise that a good deal of concern has been caused by the lack of a decision?

Mr. Marsh: I appreciate the difficulties. On the other hand, with a decision such as this, it is important that various bodies are properly consulted. We have had helpful advice and consultations. That is why I say that we hope to make an announcement fairly soon.

Imported Motor Vehicles (Safety)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to ensure the safety of the public, in view of defects in foreign cars particularly those of Japanese makes; and if he will take steps to ensure that no new foreign cars are sold in Great Britain until they have passed a comprehensive road safety test and the makers assure his Department that adequate servicing arrangements are available to minimise accident risk.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that all Japanese manufactured cars imported into the United Kingdom conform with all United Kingdom safety regulations.

Mr. Bob Brown: All United Kingdom manufactured vehicles and those imported must comply with United Kingdom safety regulations. In the rare cases where they do not our engineers immediately take corrective action with the manufacturers. Other defects which only come to light after a vehicle has been in use for some time would not be detected by the tests suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend agree that when defects are found very long delay is caused to the purchasers in this country because of the inefficient servicing of such cars? Does he not feel that far more stringent tests are necessary on imported cars to bring them anywhere near the standards normally accepted by British motor manufacturers?

Mr. Brown: There is no evidence which leads us to believe that Japanese cars in use in this country are any less safe than any other vehicle. In the past, defects have been found in vehicles made by various motor manufacturers throughout the world. These defects have been put right at source for future production,

and manufacturers' agents in foreign countries have dealt with the defects of the exported vehicles.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that in Japan a good many cars of Japanese make have been sent back to the manufacturers because they are unsafe? Has the Ministry given any special advice or guidance to owners or prospective owners of Japanese cars in this country to make sure that they are completely road-worthy and safe?

Mr. Brown: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the Honda baby car. There are very few such cars in use in this country. No defects have been discovered in them in our spot checks. We are watching carefully the action of the Japanese Ministry of Transport and the manufacturers.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that British motor cars entering the United States must conform to very, very high safety standards? Can he give an assurance that Japanese cars entering this country must conform to equally high standards as those applicable to British cars in the United States?

Mr. Brown: We are considering this matter in relation to the general question of the international harmonisation of vehicle safety standards. I emphasise that there is no evidence to suggest that foreign vehicles are any less safe than United Kingdom manufactured vehicles. Any special measures aimed at foreign vehicles could bring retaliation against vehicles manufactured in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why the Ministry is still only considering this matter when the United States has long since taken action enforcing high safety standards which could have had appalling effects on British exporters if they had not reacted as they did? Why should not Japanese exporters be expected to comply with similar regulations introduced in this country?

Mr. Brown: We constantly have this question under discussion with our E.E.C. colleagues. I have already indicated that we are considering this matter in relation to general harmonisation. I do not want to go any further than that now.

Breathalyser Tests

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Sheriff Court of Falkirk and the Sheriff Court of Stirling recently gave mutually contradictory rulings in breathalyser cases; and whether, in view of the importance of drink and driving in motoring legislation, he will now introduce amending legislation to ensure that no motorist is formally arrested before a blood or urine test; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Marsh: I understand that these cases are both under appeal, so I am unable to comment on them.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the Minister after three years of breathalyser legislation, of which I am a strong supporter, undertake to examine the inconsistencies and anomalies which have now arisen in all parts of the country—Scotland as well as England—with a view to amending legislation as necessary in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Marsh: The breathalyser at present is having a very good effect in holding down accidents and in making considerable reductions in the accident figures. If at any time I felt that it was necessary to change the law because it was being interpreted differently from the way in which the House intended, I would most certainly ask my colleagues to consider this.

British Waterways Board (Boating Centres)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport how many marinas are scheduled for construction by the British Waterways Board; what is the estimated cost of these; and which schemes at what cost have been approved by him.

Mr. Carmichael: The Board tells me it is in the early stages of planning the development of three major boating centres and that the furthest advanced of these projects may cost less than £60,000. No estimates have yet been settled for the others. The answer to the third part of the Question is "None, Sir".

Mr. Berry: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that as these marinas are

urgently needed and private investors are keen to build them, and as the cost to the British Waterways Board would involve a loan and interest thereon, would it not be better to concentrate the Board's money on the improvement of the waterways themselves, such as the Ashton and Lower Peak Forest Canals?

Mr. Carmichael: The waterways are supported by very generous Government subsidies and any consequential opportunities for profitable business should, in the public interest, be open to public as well as private enterprise.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if it is possible to raise private capital to finance these projects, as there is such desperate pressure on all forms of public expenditure, it would be wise to let private capital be used for such purposes?

Mr. Carmichael: Of course it would. The British Waterways Board is considering a number of joint ventures with private capital. There is no question of shutting private capital out. It is just that where there is an opportunity for public money to be increased by investment in such things as these marinas, then advantage should be taken of such opportunity.

Articulated Lorries (Jack-knifing)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Transport how far research has progressed in the field of possible devices on articulated lorries to avoid jack-knifing.

Mr. Bob Brown: Research into possible devices on articulated vehicles to prevent jack-knifing is still being carried out. Such devices are at present undergoing trials in field conditions, but it is too early to say what the results will be.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will my hon. Friend follow up these researches diligently? Is he aware that there are an increasing number of accidents by jackknifing of these articulated vehicles, many of them travelling greatly in excess of the speed limit? Would he at least assure the House that if this goes on he will consider legislation providing for far greater penalties than those at present?

Mr. Brown: The question of articulated lorries or any other vehicles exceeding the


speed limit is not one for me. I would add that a sample survey by the Road Research Laboratory shows that there is very little difference in terms of accidents between articulated vehicles and other large goods vehicles. The articulated vehicles are marginally better on motorways, while the situation is reversed on other roads. National statistics have not been kept separately, but we are keeping them now and will have them available later this year.

Vehicle Testing Station, Livingston

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Transport what was the total cost of siting, building and equipping the vehicle testing station at the new town of Livingston, Midlothian; and how many are to be employed there.

Mr. Carmichael: The estimated total cost is £133,400; ultimately 20 are to be employed there.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that due consideration has been given to the expected build-up of population in the new towns and the consequential increase in vehicles serving the area?

Mr. Carmichael: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is speaking of the traffic difficulties or the capacity of the station. There are difficulties about recruiting staff in this area because of the vehicle factory at Bathgate, but once fully manned the station will have sufficient capacity to handle all the vehicles that will be coming. I am informed that there is not likely to be any noticeable increase in traffic on the roads.

Driving Tests (Midlothian)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Transport what is the waiting period involved for applicants in the county of Midlothian who desire to take a test of competence to drive a motor vehicle.

Mr. Carmichael: On average four weeks.

Mr. Eadie: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that Midlothian is not treated less favourably in these waiting periods compared with other parts of the country?

Mr. Carmichael: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The national average is about five weeks. We have discovered that in practice most people like a period of about four weeks so that they have warning of the test. It is frequently possible to arrange an earlier test if that is urgently required.

Motor Cars (Safety Device)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport what studies his Department has made of the device called the air bag designed to minimise the damaging effects of concussion in motor car collisions and other accidents; and what steps he plans to encourage its use.

Mr. Bob Brown: The Department is carrying out an assessment of the effectiveness of the air bag restraint system in motor car collisions. Whether we plan any steps to encourage its use will depend on the result of this assessment and of any further development of the system that may be achieved.

Mr. Hughes: Are these studies mentioned in my Question directed towards elaborating that device or towards substituting a different device? If it is the latter, what is that device? This is a matter of life and death to the people on the roads.

Mr. Brown: I cannot comment in detail on that, but if the additional advantages of the system justify the additional cost my right hon. Friend will consider the compulsory fitting of these devices.

Merseyside Land Use and Transportation Study

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport what are his plans for implementing the Merseyside Area Land Use and Transportation Study Report.

Mr. Marsh: I welcome this Report, and I am giving urgent consideration to the recommendations on immediate priorities for new highway and public transport construction. The initiative for taking up the bulk of the recommendations lies of course with the local authorities and other bodies on Merseyside.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is estimated the rail terminal


loop scheme would take 9,000 people from the buses on to the rail and, possibly, give a return of 17 per cent. on capital employed?

Mr. Marsh: I am anxious that preparatory work should go ahead as rapidly as possible. If the scheme goes ahead, a decision would have to be taken in conjunction with the passenger transport authority and British Railways.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport what are his plans for a bridge across the Mersey now that the Merseyside Area Land Use and Transportation Study Report is available.

Mr. Bob Brown: The Report proposes a bridge, but not as a first priority and it would be premature to be making plans now.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister bear in mind that instead of the bridge from Aigburth over to Bebington it might be cheaper to have a low-level one southeast of the Garston docks and rising over the Manchester Ship Canal?

Mr. Brown: Present indications are that the site of the bridge would probably be between Bromborough and Aigburth, but this of course would require further study.

Mr. Fortescue: In examining any proposal for a bridge from Aigburth, which is in my constituency, will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary take good care to consider the effect that it might have on the deep-water channel from the mouth of the Mersey to Garston docks, also in my constituency?

Mr. Brown: I assure the hon. Gentleman that provision for navigation will be duly taken into account in the design of the bridge.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that for many years people in Liverpool, through the city council and other bodies, have been urging the establishment of such a bridge? Is it not possible to erect such a bridge taking into account the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue)? There are such bridges in existence at San Francisco and other places.

Mr. Brown: This brings us on to the programme. No decision is possible at this point in time. The scheme will even-

tually be programmed for an appropriate year. This will be determined on the basis of traffic needs and the resources available for construction.

Goods Vehicles (Safe Loading)

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce a code of practice to secure the safer loading of road goods vehicles, especially where bulky loads are concerned.

Mr. Carmichael: There are already general regulations on safe loading which are regularly enforced. We are currently participating in the drafting of a European code of practice which will give detailed advice to operators.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the regulations to which he refers, there are a large number of fatal accidents resulting from the insecure loading of lorries, including one last month in Maryport, Cumberland, where four people were killed when 15-ft. logs fell off a lorry on to a bus? Is it not shocking that this state of affairs should be allowed to continue?

Mr. Carmichael: That is one of the reasons why we are participating in the drafting of a European code. Bearing in mind the number of vehicles on the roads—I do not want to appear to be lacking in thought about this—the police seem to consider that the existing provisions are sufficient and that enforcement would be more difficult if methods of loading were specified in regulations. There are 5,500 convictions a year for unsafe loading of vehicles.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, although 5,500 may seem a significant figure, many of us on this side would be happier if the figure were twice that, or 11,000? We can talk until we are blue in the face about the European code. Let us have a British code first and save lives.

Mr. Carmichael: There are British regulations. My hon. Friend seems to feel there should be more convictions. I think he should address his question to the Home Secretary, because he is responsible for the enforcement of the regulations; but we understand that the police are agreed that the existing codes are sufficient.

Mrs. Thatcher: Could the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say whether convictions have been increasing in recent years and give us some yardstick by which to judge last year's convictions?

Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, but without notice I cannot give the hon. Lady that answer.

Transport Act, 1968 (Implementation)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the implementation of those sections of the Transport Act, 1968, dealing with passenger transport and road haulage; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marsh: The sections of the Act dealing with passenger transport and road haulage contain a great many provisions and most of them are in course of implementation or have already been implemented.

Mr. Gardner: Yes, but is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the rather silly views of the motoring organisations and the Road Haulage Association, and, indeed, of some hon. Ladies and Gentlemen opposite, the fact is that Britain, and particularly London, is very quickly grinding to a halt? Will he, therefore, seek to implement as quickly as possible those sections which will enable to take place the transfer of passengers to public transport and goods to rail?

Mr. Marsh: Well, of course, the public transport authorities provisions in the Act do not apply to London which is dealt with in a different way, in the London Transport Bill which is going through in another place at the moment.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Would not the Minister accept the agreement of hon. Members on this side of the House with his failure to implement those parts of the Transport Act which were bitterly opposed by the Opposition, and particularly, what is quite right, his failure to implement the quantity licensing provisions?

Mr. Marsh: No, Sir. As I remember it, the Opposition opposed everything in the Transport Bill, including those things which were welcomed by most of the rest of the country. As to quantity licensing, it was always said, and it was said in the

White Paper, that we would not bring it in till the freightliners had developed sufficiently to justify its introduction.

V.T.20 Test Certificates

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the 88 prosecutions which took place in England and Wales during 1968 for the issuing of false Ministry of Transport V.T.20 test certificates, he is satisfied that the scheme is working effectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Carmichael: With over 23,000 approved garages issuing some 8 million certificates annually, there are inevitably some who do not measure up to the required standards. Measures have been introduced to raise standards, and we are keeping a close watch on the situation.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Although I appreciate the difficulties of discovering who issues false certificates and who does not, 88 prosecutions in England and Wales is a pitifully small number. I am concerned here with second-hand car buyers, and I wonder whether we need either more inspectors or a second-hand car test for cars that are put on sale. Has the Ministry thought about this?

Mr. Carmichael: I will draw the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend. There are other methods besides prosecution; for instance, the withdrawal of appointment, which is a very severe punishment for many garages. Last year there were 195 withdrawals for the improper issue of certificates, and more than 2,300 withdrawals for other reasons.

Commercial Vehicles (Parking Facilities)

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to ensure that there is provided in every industrial town parking facilities for commercial vehicles within reasonable distance of lodging accommodation.

Mr. Carmichael: The provision of parking space for commercial vehicles is a matter for the local authorities. We consider lorry parks highly desirable in the interests of local amenity and safety and are taking every opportunity of encouraging their provision.

Mr. Archer: I thank my hon. Friend for the latter part of his Answer, but is he aware that the lack of facilities is not merely a serious inconvenience to lorry drivers but frequently leads to the parking of vehicles where they are a nuisance to residents? Has he no powers of persuasion in this matter?

Mr. Carmichael: My right hon. Friend has powers of discussion which frequently lead to the persuasion of local authorities. He is having discussions with local authorities at traffic seminars throughout the country. Local authorities are now I think fully apprised from the practical point of view of streets being overcrowded and of the necessity for having parking facilities for lorries.

Lorries (Rear Lighting)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now lay before the House revised regulations for the rear lighting of lorries.

Mr. Carmichael: Present lighting equipment is, in general, adequate and we have already made regulations requiring improved reflectors for new vehicles from next year. We are now completing proposals, in consultation with manufacturers and users, for conspicuous marker plates for larger vehicles in reflectorised and fluorescent material, and we shall lay regulations on these as soon as technical details can be settled.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that when I asked this question about three months ago he said that consideration was being given to this matter and that new regulations would be laid? Would not it be a good idea for the regulations to be laid before the winter, because many lorries using motorways are inadequately lit and this leads to accidents?

Mr. Carmichael: Yes, this is a very important point. Difficulties exist in fitting plates to the large range of vehicles involved, and we are considering ways of resolving the difficulties before making final proposals.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the regulations include compulsory brake lights, because many of us think these are as important as extra reflectors?

Mr. Carmichael: I would like notice of this Question. I was under the im-

pression that this was the case. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to write to her on this matter.

Advanced Driving Instructors (Registration)

Mr. Hiley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will seek to amend the law so as to exclude from registration teachers of advanced driving.

Mr. Bob Brown: No, Sir. There is no justification on road safety grounds for excluding teachers of advanced driving from the registration requirements which apply to other driving instructors.

Mr. Hiley: Does the Minister realise the difference in function between a teacher of advanced motoring and an instructor who merely provides tuition for those who require a licence? Surely the fact that the advanced driver as such has already obtained his qualification should be sufficient to ensure that he will be allowed to carry on his job without further registration.

Mr. Bob Brown: The hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the situation. The existing driving instructor now giving advanced driving instruction has not necessarily the qualifications needed for registration. The object of registration is to improve driving standards through better tuition. The principles of road safety are the same for all drivers and instructors at whatever level. It is these that form the subject of the examination.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Fleet Line Extension (South-East London)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received proposals for the extension of the Fleet Line into South-East London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marsh: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 9th June. —[Vol. 784; c. 941.]

Mr. Moyle: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that when he answered the Question last time he said that proposals were expected in a few weeks? Can he give an estimate as to when the


proposals are likely to be laid before him, and can he give any idea of what is holding them up?

Mr. Marsh: I cannot make a statement at the moment as to when they will be put before me, because it is for the London Transport Board to put them before me. I do not accept that they are being held up. Very substantial investment is involved. The social benefits of the scheme must be shown to outweigh the cost. When very big investments are involved, it is important that the right decisions are made.

Advanced Passenger Trains (High Speed Travel)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the development of computer-controlled 400 miles per hour underground vacuum trains with special reference to their safety, cleanliness and economy and their ability to link the centre of London to airports and far-distant commuter areas; and if he will take steps to set up an experimental gravity-vacuum tube section.

Mr. Carmichael: We know of this proposal but have not mounted any detailed studies or experiments at this stage.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend accept that it is essential that we spend far more money on high speed ground transport and perhaps less on high speed air transport if the majority of the community is to benefit? Would he agree that it is only with high speed ground transport of this type that people can be taken to pleasant places like Wales or the East Anglian coast, or commute to Birmingham and even London?

Mr. Carmichael: I do not know why Scotland was missed out of that list. This is an interesting proposal, but there are many technical problems involved. We believe that the United Kingdom effort on surface transport should be devoted to the advance passenger train. There are feasibility studies going on at John Hopkins University on this new idea, but I understand that one of the technical problems is that the track alignment and smoothness would need to be 25 times greater than the Tokaido high speed line in Japan.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that any method of speeding up land transport would be greatly appreciated by the travelling public? Is he aware that it is very frustrating, after a 50 minute flight, to wait 40 minutes for baggage and another 30 minutes before reaching London?

Mr. Carmichael: This is why we are concentrating on the advance passenger train. The second part of the question is rather more specialised. There are other Questions down on the Order Paper dealing with travel from London Airport.

Heathrow Airport (Rail Link)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport when he will make a decision about rail and underground links with Heathrow Airport.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the various proposals he has received for a rail link with Heathrow Airport.

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Minister of Transport when he will announce a starting date for the construction of a fast rail link between Heathrow Airport and Central London.

Mr. Carmichael: We have received proposals for a surface rail link from Victoria to Heathrow and for an extension of the Piccadilly Line west of Hounslow. The traffic will not justify both. There are points still to be cleared up about the links and about the future of the airport coaches. My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade are studying these and will reach a decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Berry: Although that represents a slight improvement on previous replies, does the hon. Gentleman realise the urgency of the problem? Within 10 years 30 million travellers will be using Heathrow Airport and it is vital to have this rail link as soon as possible, particularly bearing in mind that many people who today use London as their entry to Europe will very soon switch to Paris if proper facilities are not provided for them when they arrive at Heathrow?

Mr. Carmichael: We appreciate the urgency, but there are several interested parties—the British Airports Authority, the airlines and British Railways, as well as the Ministry of Transport. We must get agreement among them all, because only one link would be financially viable and, therefore, we must settle for one. I agree that it is a very difficult problem. It is also a very difficult decision to take.

Mr. Atkins: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a British Railways link with Heathrow would be the best means of dealing with large numbers of passengers during rush hours and also provide means of carrying goods by rail?

Mr. Carmichael: The second part of that question would appear to some extent to defeat the purpose of the first part—that is, an exclusive link between Heathrow and Central London. The British Railways link would just be viable if an agreement could be reached to withdraw the airport coaches. If, however, the airport coaches continue to be used, as many airline companies wish, the link would not be viable. Unfortunately, our examination shows that no juggling of fares between coaches and rail would make the link viable unless there were fairly exclusive use.

Mr. Whitaker: Can my hon. Friend say when the talking will stop and when the action will start, in view of the fact that travel between the terminal and Heathrow takes longer than many flights and traffic congestion will become immeasurably worse during construction of the link?

Mr. Carmichael: I would be only too pleased if I could announce that the talking had stopped, but there are real problems. I have tried to indicate that a number of parties are involved. The decision on the link is so vital that we must have agreement with the parties. It would be all very nice if my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade could come down one way or the other, but they must satisfy the people involved.

Mrs. Thatcher: We all agree that the link is vital. Can the hon. Gentleman therefore give some hope of a date when a link will be completed? Can he also say how the finance will be done? Would

it have to be done off British Railways' very slender investment budget?

Mr. Carmichael: In reply to the last point, an allowance has been made in the recent investment figures of British Railways for work on this link. In reply to the question about a date, I should say also that London Transport has, as the hon. Lady will be aware, put forward a scheme for the extension of the Piccadilly Line. These two schemes must be examined. Both of them have certain points in their favour and certain disadvantages. I repeat that we must get agreement with the people who would be using the link.

Mr. Whitaker: In view of the less than usually satisfactory answer which I received, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

Capital Expenditure

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport what will be the estimated total amount of capital expenditure by British Railways in 1969; and by what percentage this figure exceeds or falls short of the 1964 actual capital spending figure at constant prices.

Mr. Carmichael: Rather less than £80 million. As my right hon. Friend said in his reply to the hon. Member on 3rd March, any direct comparison with earlier years is affected by the transfer, under the Transport Act, 1968, of some railway activities to the National Freight Corporation and the Scottish Transport Group. After taking account of the likely investment in these transferred activities, the overall reduction is now expected to be of the order of 23 per cent.—[Vol. 779, c. 18.]

Mr. Taylor: Is not the Minister ashamed of these figures, in which we have seen year by year a reduction in the amount of capital available to British Railways? Does not the Minister agree that the figures are woefully inadequate? Does he consider they will be adequate to enable British Railways to increase traffic and to increase revenue and to improve reliability and punctuality?

Mr. Carmichael: In present economic circumstances the British Railways Board is getting a fair share of national investment. It may interest hon. Members to know that railway investment per route


mile is higher in 1969 than it was in 1964—that is, there is now a more efficient and more rational rail system. Investment per mile is higher than it was when hon. Members opposite were in power.

Trains (Punctuality)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Transport what were the average figures for punctuality of trains in the three months before the report of the Central Transport Consultative Committee; and what are the comparable figures in the three months following that report.

Mr. Carmichael: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not it time that the Ministry devoted attention to the unpunctuality of trains? Is the Minister aware that this is causing considerable inconvenience, particularly to commuters on the perimeter of London, and also in the North-East. When I write to the Minister about these matters and I am referred to the British Railways I get unsatisfactory answers. Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter his personal attention?

Mr. Carmichael: Punctuality is a management question for British Railways. My right hon. Friend is greatly concerned about it, and discussions with

Express Trains
Other Trains




On time Per cent.
0–5 minutes late Per cent.
On time Per cent.
0–5 minutes late Per cent.


12 week period ended 28th December, 1968
…
47·8
70·6
73·3
89·9




On time Per cent.
0–5 minutes late Per cent.
On time Per cent.
0–5 minutes late Per cent.


12 week period ended 22nd March, 1969
…
59·4
73·1
75·1
90·4

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTS

Large Ships (Terminal Facilities)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Minister of Transport what consultations he is having with the industries concerned about ocean terminal facilities in the Clyde Estuary, where ships of over 300,000 tons can be accommodated without dredging, in view of the world trend towards vessels of such sizes and the economies likely to be achieved thereby.

British Railways are held. I am aware of the most unfortunate and annoying week which my right hon. Friend had when he was a passenger in five trains which were all excessively late, I have read the correspondence, and the Chairman of British Railways went to some trouble to give my right hon. Friend details of why the series of incidents caused delay. But punctuality has been improving.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister realise how general this problem is? Does he appreciate that in 1968 44 per cent. of all express trains and over 22 per cent. of all other trains did not arrive at the scheduled time? The Minister says that the figures are improving, but does not he appreciate that during the last four years they have been deteriorating?

Mr. Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman will wait until the figures are published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that there has been an improvement, although I would not say the improvement is sufficient to show an absolute change of direction. In reply to the supplementary question about the London area which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the difficulty is that the commuter network is carrying far more traffic than it was ever designed to carry.

Following is the information:

Mr. Younger: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will initiate further studies of the prospects of sheltered berths being provided in Great Britain for ships of 250,000 tons or more; and in what areas this is possible without dredging.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take further steps to ascertain the nation's future requirements for ore terminals with facilities to accommodate


the new generation of ore carrying vessels; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marsh: With permission, I will answer Oral Questions Nos. 17 and 18 and Written No. 14 together.
Specific requirements for new terminal facilities are, in the first instance, for the industries concerned to discuss with appropriate port authorities. The general picture of availability of such facilities, and potential demand, has already been studied by the National Ports Council and is described in their recent "Port Progress Report".

Mr. Campbell: As in a few years ships of 100,000 tons may appear to be midgets if the present trend continues, will the Minister ensure that Government Departments and nationalised industries recognise the national asset of very deep water in the Firth of Clyde and keep their plans flexible accordingly?

Mr. Marsh: Of course. That was why I said that the National Ports Council had already studied the availability and the likely future requirements of port facilities for carriers of this size.

Mr. Younger: Is it not the case that the only place that can take fully laden ships of this size at all stages of the tide is the West Coast of Scotland? Will not the Minister, therefore, in recognising this bear in mind that this is a national asset which ought to be put to the use not merely of this country but Europe as a whole?

Mr. Marsh: In the first instance, it is for those who would be using such facilities to negotiate with the port authority. This is already happening in a number of cases on the Clyde.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend looked into the economics of merry-go-round, long-distance ore-carrying trains enabling deep-water ports to be used to serve steel plants far inland?

Mr. Marsh: That is another question, but certainly much work has been done on facilities of this kind.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter of great urgency on Clydeside where present ore terminal facilities can accommodate vessels only up to 30,000 tons? Will his Ministry and the Ports Council be in-

volved in the discussions between B.S.C. and the Clyde Port Authority?

Mr. Marsh: Of course. Under the Harbours Act, 1964, I have responsibility for giving consent to any port investment in excess of £500,000, so if there were any investment in excess of that I would have to be approached.

Mr. Rankin: Are any plans in being to enable Upper Clydeside to handle vessels of this size?

Mr. Marsh: I thought that I had made it clear that the present position was that a number of discussions were taking place with potential users to see whether an accommodation could be made between them. It is after that, when there is a demand which has been identified, that the Ministry comes in.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Minister of Transport which ports in Great Britain can now provide terminal facilities for ore carriers and other ships of over 200.000 tons.

Mr. Marsh: No ore carriers over 200,000 tons exist or are contemplated. It will be possible to make provision at Port Talbot for the largest ore ships now being envisaged, and possibilities for similar facilities at other ports are being considered. All the ships over 200,000 tons in service or currently planned are oil tankers. Provision for tankers of 200,000 tons and upwards is at present being made at Milford Haven and on the Clyde.

Mr. Campbell: As the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Power are due to consider the plans of the British Steel Corporation which were announced last Friday, will the Government ensure that they allow for the probable use in future of such very large ore carriers in order to reduce costs, and will he bear in mind that such carriers will require very deep water?

Mr. Marsh: Of course. That is why the British Steel Corporation is already engaged in discussions with the Clyde Port Authority on this and will take this into account.

Mr. Heffer: What plans are likely to develop on Merseyside, particularly to meet the ore requirements of Summers?

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend would be advised to put down a separate Question about that.

Port Employers (Licensing)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made in licensing port employers under the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, in the port of Aberdeen.

Mr. Carmichael: My right hon. Friend's decision had been held up to allow the various fishing interests to find a solution to the purely local problem of the berthing arrangements for fishing vessels. In view of the delay that has occurred, however, he is considering what can best be done to facilitate an early decision.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the problem is not only local but is of importance to Britain's export trade, and will he look into it again with a view to seeing that the matter is rectified?

Mr. Carmichael: Yes.

POST OFFICE (ENGINEERING UNION STRIKE)

Mr. Bryan (by Private Notice): asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the strike of the members of the Post Office Engineering Union.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): The Post Office Engineering Union has made a claim for a 10 per cent. increase in pay from 1st July, 1969, for the grades it represents, numbering about 108,000, together with certain supplementary claims which, if met in full, would cost about £19 to £20 million a year. The claim is said to take account of wage movements in outside industry plus a share in the estimated staff savings arising from changes in working practices.
Following discussions with the union last week, I made an improved offer of an increase of 5 per cent. which, together with concession of certain of the subsidiary claims would absorb virtually the whole of the additional productivity sayings—£9 to £10 million—expected to be achieved in the current financial year.

Subsequently, I proposed to the union that it should enter into an undertaking about long-term productivity, in return for which I offered an increase of 7 per cent. I feel that this offer provides a basis for continuing the productivity improvements which have hitherto been of considerable benefit to both the Post Office and to the union members.
I regret to say that the union did not find either of these proposals acceptable, nor was it prepared, in spite of the negotiations which were proceeding, to call off the strike action in Northern Ireland on Friday and in the rest of the country today.
Preliminary reports confirm that the local and trunk services are continuing to operate, although at somewhat reduced efficiency because of faults which have developed, and have not been cleared. The union is carrying out its undertaking to attend to emergency faults affecting safety of life. The Post Office Tower is closed to the public, but the microwave links are in service. The full effect on television services remains uncertain.
I greatly regret any inconvenience to the public caused by this action.

Mr. Bryan: The House will be relieved to hear that the inconveniences caused so far are not very great, but we should like to hear what the Minister intends to do about the future situation, which can get a lot worse. The fact that the union has been without a strike throughout its whole history of 87 years adds weight to the case in the eyes of the public.
Leaving aside the merits of the case, would the Minister answer the allegation that the Post Office has been unduly long and laggardly in its negotiations, which have now been going on for eight months, and that no effort was made until the eve of the conference of the union, which was not a good time to make an offer? Since the union has said that its contest is with the Post Office and not with the public, will the Minister ask the secretary of the union whether he can spare one engineer to throw a switch in the Post Office tower so as to bring back television to many millions of people in London tonight?

Mr. Stonehouse: It would be advisable not to be drawn on the last request so as not to exacerbate the situation. I am


sure that the general secretary of the union will be made aware of the request which has been made.
I very much hope that the union will now see the fair and reasonable proposal which I have made to it for a 7 per cent. increase related to a long-term productivity agreement, which will be extremely valuable to the union. I hope that the union will appreciate it as a fair proposal and seek to see me to continue negotiations upon it.
As for the length of time in negotiation, it must be borne in mind that in the Civil Service there is a retrospective rule and that it is possible for negotiations to continue for six months after 1st July without the members losing any of the award. I should have thought that there was more than enough time for the union to have continued negotiations without resorting to a strike.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Could not this dispute be speedily resolved if the Government were to take action as quickly and as generously in this respect as they have done in regard to the pay of higher civil servants, the chairmen of the nationalised industries, and Mr. Aubrey Jones, who has been given a two-year contract at £15,000? Will the Minister not deal with this claim on the same basis?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that there will be some hon. Members who feel that we should just give in to any claim which is put forward. But I do not feel that would be advisable, because some hon. Gentlemen would then complain because Post Office charges would have to be put up to meet it.
What we are doing in responding to this claim is agreeing to pay out to the union all of the productivity savings we expect to make in the next year. If we were to go beyond that by any significant amount the only way in which the Post Office could make up the difference would be by increasing charges to the public. If that were to happen, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would be the first to complain.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Has the Postmaster-General not shilly-shallied by making a number of different confusing and inconsistent offers? Has he not blundered by

destroying the faith of the union in productivity bargaining?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not accept that. At the beginning of the negotiations we put forward an offer associated with productivity of 4 per cent. The union members, being civil servants, were also entitled—we put this to them—to accept a 3½ per cent. increase, which assumed their continuing co-operation. It is not true to say that it was completely without any qualification attached to it. I believe that there was no inconsistency between these two proposals.

Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend not recognise that the Government's attitude brings into question their sincerity about productivity bargaining? Is it not a fact that this union has saved over £66 million during the last four years of productivity bargaining and is entitled to an increase on that basis without looking to the forward-planning and strings which may be attached by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Stonehouse: Many of the productivity savings achieved are as a result of greater investment and improvements in technology. This must be borne in mind. We must also expect employers and the public generally to obtain some benefit from these improvements. They cannot all be paid out all the time, otherwise there is no return to the economy as a whole.
As for the last four years, we estimate productivity savings of about £66 million, but in 3¼ years the increases in pay the union grades have enjoyed, including productivity savings, were about £52 million. I do not think that they have done at all badly.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The Minister has not answered my hon. Friend's question, in which he inquired what the Minister intended to do if the strikes recurred in other weeks with great inconvenience to the public.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have answered that question. I said that I hoped the union would now respond to the fair proposal I put forward and will now ask to see me to continue the negotiations. I hope that we will say nothing in this House to exacerbate this situation.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I gave notice on Friday that I wished to make a correction to HANSARD. Should I raise it now, Mr. Speaker, or later?

Mr. Speaker: Now.

Mr. Lewis: May I draw your attention, Sir, to an inaccuracy in HANSARD last Thursday, in col. 312? I asked the Prime Minister whether he would make a statement on salary increases to higher-paid civil servants. That was for oral reply on Thursday.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied:
I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 19th June.—[Vol. 783, c. 145.] [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 312.]
I do not want to complain that that is a deliberate twist, in view of what happened on Friday, when a statement was made, but Vol. 783 refers to the Post Office debate and has nothing to do with the Plowden Committee on the Civil Service. I assume that the reference should have been Vol. 785, c. 145. The rest of the Answer is still inaccurate, but that I accept.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has complained that the Prime Minister replied in a Written Answer at c. 312 that he had nothing to add at present to the Answer which he gave to his hon. Friend on 19th June.

I find that, in a Written Answer on 19th June at c. 145, the Prime Minister said that the Government were considering the matter. If, earlier, they were considering it, on Thursday they had nothing to add, and on the 11th, the day after, they made a decision, that is not a reason for correcting HANSARD.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. All that the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he is dissatisfied with the Prime Minister's Answer. That has happened throughout history.

Mr. Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, if you look at Vol. 783, you will find that it is concerned with the Post Office. The reference should be to Vol. 785. That is the correction which I am trying to make. The reference is to the wrong volume.

Mr. Speaker: I am so grateful. I had looked at the date only. I did not imagine that we were going back through past history. The necessary correction in the volume number will be made.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRI- BUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 43A (Allocation of time to Bilis):—
That the Report [10th July] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Peart.]

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 229.

Division No. 318.]
AYES
[3.40 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boston, Terence
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Albu, Austen
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dalyell, Tam


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyden, James
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Alldritt, Walter
Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Buchan, Norman
Delargy, Hugh


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dell, Edmund


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dempsey, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Michael
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Barnett, Joel
Cant, R. B.
Dickens, James


Baxter, William
Carmichael, Neil
Dobson, Ray


Beaney, Alan
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter


Bence, Cyril
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Driberg, Tom


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Chapman, Donald
Dunn, James A.


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard
Dunnett, Jack


Binns, John
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwynsth (Exeter)


Blackburn, F.
Crawshaw, Richard
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cronin, John
Eadie, Alex




Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pentland, Norman


Ellis, John
Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Ensor, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur


Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth
Randall, Harry


Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John


Finch, Harold
Luard, Evan
Rees, Merlyn


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir Eric(Islington,E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCann, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Sheldon, Robert


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ginsburg, David
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Silverman, Julius


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Slater, Joseph


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Small, William


Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie
Snow, Julian


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mapp, Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marks, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxwell, Robert
Symonds, J. B.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Hannan, William
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Haseldine, Norman
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hazell, Bert
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moyle, Roland
Whitaker, Ben


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitlock, William


Howie, W.
Murray, Albert
Wilkins, W. A.


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hunter, Adam
Oram, Albert E.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice
Winnick, David


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se&amp;Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Jeger, George (Goole)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur



Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Park, Trevor
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)



Judd, Frank






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Body, Richard
Clark, Henry


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter


Astor, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooke, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Awdry, Daniel
Braine, Bernard
Cordle, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Corfield, F. V.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Crouch, David


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith,A1ick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dance, James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Burden, F. A.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biffen, John
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Biggs-Davison John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Carlisle, Mark
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Black, Sir Cyril
Chataway, Christopher
Doughty, Charles







Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davis, W. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lambton, Viscount
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lane, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eyre, Reginald
Lawler, Wallace
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian


Fisher, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Gilbert
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Foster, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Royle, Anthony


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gibson-Watt, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McMaster, Stanley
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Glover, Sir Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Glyn, Sir Richard
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Silvester, Frederick


Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sinclair, Sir George


Grant, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp;L'mington)


Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Speed, Keith


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mawby, Ray
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tapsell, Peter


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tilney, John


Hastings, Stephen
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hay, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Heald, Rt. Hn. sir Lionel
Neave, Airey
Waddington, David


Heseltine, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Hill, J. E. B.
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Weatherill, Bernard


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Haltam)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hordern, Peter
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wiggin, A. W.


Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hunt, John
Pardoe, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wright, Esmond


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pink, R. Bonner
Younger, Hn. George


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pounder, Rafton



Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. R.W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Prior, J. M. L.



Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to

Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills):—

House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 232.

Division No. 319.]
AYES
[3.53 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Joel
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Albu, Austen
Baxter, William
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beaney, Alan
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Alldritt, Walter
Bence, Cyril
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Archer, Peter
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Ashley, Jack
Binns, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Blackburn, F.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Boston, Terence
Cant, R. B.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnes, Michael
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara




Chapman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Oram, Albert E.


Conlan, Bernard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orme, Stanley


Crawshaw, Richard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Cronin, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howie, W.
Palmer, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Park, Trevor


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pentland, Norman


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Dickens, James
Kelley, Richard
Randall, Harry


Dobson, Ray
Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rees, Merlyn


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (Fth &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Ellis, John
Luard, Evan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ensor, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
McGuire, Michael
Snow, Julian


Finch, Harold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Symonds, J. B.


Foley, Maurice
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tuck, Raphael


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fowler, Gerry
Manuel, Archie
Varley, Eric G.


Freeson, Reginald
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Garrett, W. E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Weitzman, David


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maxwell, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gregory, Arnold
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitaker, Ben


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mendelson, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gunter, Rt. Hon. R. J.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moonman, Eric
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hamling, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Winnick, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woof, Robert


Haseldine, Norman
Moyle, Roland
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Hazell, Bert
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Newens, Stan
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon



Henig, Stanley
O'Malley, Brian





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Batsford, Brian
Biffen, John


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Biggs-Davison, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bell, Ronald
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel


Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Black, Sir Cyril







Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Body, Richard
Hay, John
Pardoe, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heseltine, Michael
Peel, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pounder, Rafton


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cordle, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Anthony


Corfield, F. V.
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, Peter
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane, David
Sharples, Richard


Dance, James
Lawler, Wallace
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Frederick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sinclair, Sir George


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Tapsell, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Fisher, Nigel
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Foster, Sir John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&amp;Stone)
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Waddington, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Glyn, Sir Richard
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gower, Raymond
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant, Anthony
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Grieve, Percy
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wiggin, A. W.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholas, Sir Harmar
Woodnutt, Mark


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John
Wright, Esmond


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hn. George


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:
Time to be allotted to remaining Proceedings in Committee

1.—(1) The Proceedings shall be completed In one day, not being a Friday, and on that date—

(a) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings for four hours after Ten o'clock and, if the Proceedings are not entered upon by half-past Three o'clock, for a further period equal to that between half-past Three o'clock and the time when they are entered upon; and


(b)no opposed private business shall be taken; and
(c)no dilatory Motion shall be made with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings after they have been entered upon.

(2) Any postponement under sub-paragraph (1) (a) of this paragraph shall be in addition to any postponement under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).

Order of Proceedings
2. No Motion shall be made in the Committee to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule.

Time for bringing Proceedings to conclusion
3. The Proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at the end of the period for which they are exempted from interruption under Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).

Supplemental
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion at the time required by paragraph 3 above any Proceedings not previously brought to a conclusion the Chairman shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say:—
(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(b) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded, and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

(3) On the conclusion of the Proceedings the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 8th July.]

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clause 1

SUSPENSION OF REDISTRIBUTIONS TILL NEXT GENERAL REPORTS OF BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS, AND ACCELERATION OF THOSE REPORTS

4.3 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 18, at end insert:
Provided that if, in relation to any part of the United Kingdom, no such Order in Council is laid before Parliament before 1st May, 1972, the appropriate Boundary Commission shall at that date proceed to take into consideration the making of a report in respect of that part of the United Kingdom.
The Amendment seeks to add a proviso at the end of subsection (3). Under the Bill as drafted, not only does no action fall to be taken on the Boundary Commissions' Reports, recently presented—indeed, they are to be ignored, and not acted upon—but the Government can wait at least another 10 years before laying Orders in Council as a prelude to asking Parliament to approve by Resolution of each House the next general review of parliamentary boundaries. That is my understanding of what the Bill contrives to do. The drafting of the Bill, and the cross-reference which it involves, are complicated matters, and are among the reasons why we regret the curtailment of discussion on the Bill.
But whatever the position may be, it is unsatisfactory. It means that outside Greater London and its periphery all constituencies in England and Wales will be fossilised within their 1954 boundaries, which are also mostly their present boundaries, apart from those nine favoured constituencies mentioned in the First Schedule to the Bill. Meanwhile, the anomalies to which so much attention was drawn by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the first day of the Committee stage will get worse each


year. We do not know what the population of Birmingham, Ladywood may be by 1979, but it has been falling very fast in recent years. We do not know by how much the population of Huyton will have grown.
Unless the Amendment is accepted, the anomalies will continue to get worse until 1979, or even until 1983—the mystic year 1984 was mentioned last week—but certainly in any general election taking place before 1984 there is a serious risk that we shall, in the main, be working on the 1954 boundaries. I submit that 25 to 30 years is too long to wait for readjustments which, in many cases, are already urgently needed, and the Amendment would rectify that.
The effect of the Amendment is clear from its terms. It means that if the Home Secretary does nothing to initiate a general review by 1st May, 1972, the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales respectively would automatically have to go ahead within the framework of the existing legislation. They would have to undertake a fresh general review, which might take three or four years, as the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, and then they would have to consider making their reports.
If any hon. Member finds the words
take into consideration the making of a report
in the Amendment at all strange as a matter of drafting, I am able to assure him that it is technically correct. It follows the wording of the 1949 Act, as amended by the 1958 Act, and, indeed, one finds that sort of wording on page 2, in lines 37 and 38, where there is a reference to
their intention to consider the making of a report…
thus the Amendment is perfectly sound from the drafting and technical point of view.
If the Amendment were accepted, we would have a fresh general review by the Boundary Commissions available not, alas, in time for the next General Election, but in time for the General Election after that, unless by some mischance, and improbably, as a result of the Government's gerrymandering, the next Parliament turned out to be a short one. The Amendment will ensure that the next general review is not postponed for ten

years or perhaps longer but that we shall have at least a hope of one in time for the General Election after next.
I would have thought that the Government would welcome an Amendment of this kind. It gets them off the hook of ignominy from which they are now suspended. In spite of the fact that we have been told that no Amendments, however reasonable and potent, will be accepted, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment in the spirit in which it is moved, give it favourable consideration, and not stick his toes in in the way that the Government have given us to understand they intend to do throughout the rest of these severely curtailed proceedings.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I support the Amendment and the argument of my right hon. and learned friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). In essence, we have had it before, and no doubt we shall continue to have it throughout the debate. Unless the Amendment is accepted the Bill leaves the initiative for instituting boundary reviews with the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman is a political animal. That being so, his decisions must be tinged at times with politics. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tainted."] Perhaps "tainted" is a better word.
As the Clause stands the initiative lies with the Home Secretary, who has to take a decision
as soon as it appears to him that it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganization…be premature to do so".
The effect of those words is still to leave the initiative with the Home Secretary to make a decision because he thinks that there is no likelihood of local government reorganisation. Such an initiative should not lie with a member of the Government.
We have always had an unwritten Constitution, but the Government have acted in such a way in these matters that we begin to wonder whether it is not time to have a written constitution in order to protect the rights of our citizens. If these matters are to be settled not by Boundary Commissions, but by the right hon. Gentleman in the way that he has settled these, it brings the whole system of the representation of people into disrepute. It brings the question into the sphere of


Government activities, where it should not be.
For those brief reasons I support the Amendment, which would take the initiative away from a politician and give it to a body that we can trust.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I saw you look first to your right, Mr. Irving, before calling me. That was natural, because it would help the conduct of these debates if, when an Amendment has been moved in reasonable terms, some indication of the view of the Government could be given at an early stage—a stage at which it would be possible for us to seek to analyse and discusss the arguments which the Government put forward.
The technique of sitting back until a late stage, making a speech and arranging for the Closure to be moved immediately thereafter, so that the speech cannot be answered, is a negation of good Parliamentary debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite do not think that this is a House for debate, and that we should simply sit here until the Minister condescends to answer, and then have further discussion excluded, their ideas of Parliament differ very much from mine.
This is essentially an Amendment on which it is necessary to know at an early stage what the thinking of the Government is. We were told by no less a person than the Prime Minister—and it may none the less be true—that all this Redcliffe-Maud business would be duly enacted by the early 1970's. The Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he was being unduly pessimistic in suggesting that it would be completed only in 1974. If that is right—if it is anywhere near right—it should be quite possible for the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment. We are told that the whole reason for this legislation is the undesirability of making changes before Redcliffe-Maud.
We know from the experience of recent Boundary Commissions that their researches take a considerable time. This is because of the careful and conscientious way in which they do their work and their willingness to listen to argument and

evidence before making their recommendations. Consequently, if the Prime Minister is right and my right hon. Friend is unduly pessimistic in estimating that it will be 1974 before Redcliffe-Maud is in operation, by 1972 the Boundary Commission should certainly be under way, if it is to come to conclusions as soon as possible after the actual operation of the Redcliffe-Maud reforms.
We all know from long experience of the reform of local government in London that when everything has been crystallised and the necessary legislation has been taken through Parliament a substantial period must be allowed to elapse before a new system of local government begins to operate, so as to allow time for the necessary readjustment. The more radical the changes the longer the period of readjustment required. If, therefore, Redcliffe-Maud is to be in operation in 1974 the form of the proposals will have to have been through this House certainly by 1971, which would mean that the Boundary Commissions would be able to proceed in 1972 on the basis of changes having been put into the form of legislation.
Taking the Government at their word, therefore, 1972 is about the latest date at which we could expect the Boundary Commissions to resume their interrupted labours. We come, therefore, to the point that if the Home Secretary is to resist this date because, he suggests, it may be too early—I cannot think of any other grounds that he is likely to put forward—we are driven to the conclusion that Redcliffe-Maud has nothing to do with the case because, on the showing of the Prime Minister, if Redcliffe-Maud be the reason it will be effectively far enough forward for the Boundary Commissions to be set to work in 1972, if not earlier.
I therefore suggest to the Home Secretary that the sooner he gives us his views on the Amendment the more productive will be the debate. On the face of it, a refusal to accept the Amendment—an effort to hold back the Boundary Commission's review beyond 1972—is wholly inconsistent with the reasons given by the Government for bringing the Bill forward.
I do not need to add—my right hon. and learned Friend has already done it so well—how unfortunate are the effects, as the years pass, of a longer delay in


the redistribution. The large seats get even larger and more unmanageable, the small ones wither away. The disparities and anomalies of representation, the difference in the value of one man's vote relatively to another's, grow year after year. Even the Home Secretary should want to keep this process as short as possible. He cannot really want the electoral system to become more and more anomalous and discredited as year follows year.
Therefore, I should have thought that he would welcome the Amendment, which at least secures that this long-delayed process of a proper review by the Boundary Commission would begin in 1972. If he resists this, it will be tantamount to saying that he himself does not believe that Redcliffe-Maud has anything to do with the case and that he would be rather surprised if we thought so.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) had better not be as unmannerly today as he was the other day, otherwise we will have a very poor debate—

Mr. Quintin Hogg: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that I asked quietly across the Table when it was hoped that I should get up. I was told "Very soon," and I got up very soon.

Mr. Hogg: The only intervention which I made was to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to do as he was asked. I cannot conceive why, unless he wants to provoke trouble, he should be so offensive in the first words that he utters.

Mr. Callaghan: I did not regard the sedentary manner of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interruption, nor the way in which he said it, nor the words he used, as being any encouragement at all to good relations in this debate.
I must tell the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that I will be happy to facilitate the Committee in any way I can by rising at what seems to me the proper moment. I did not think that it was right

to rise after one speech, but I agree that this need not be a long debate and I am happy to give my views now.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) said that we might well have to wait as long as 10 years, or even 15, to 1979 or 1983, before the next redistribution report, and that a period of 25 to 30 years was much too long. I agree with him, and I can give the absolute assurance that we certainly shall not need to wait until 1979 or 1983 before the next redistribution report. I would expect it to come far more quickly than that.
As he said, under his Amendment, the Boundary Commission would have to go ahead by 1972 if, by that time, no Order in Council had been made by me asking it to do so. Under Clause 1(3), the obligation is laid on the Home Secretary to lay a draft Order in Council.
…as soon as it appears to him that it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation there, be premature to do so…
But what he would do is make the reactivation automatic. I do not deny that there is some attraction in fixing a date of this sort. The arguments adduced by him and by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames have a great deal of validity. This is because I think that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals are likely to be at an advanced stage by then.
However, as far as I can see the procedure, the Boundary Commission should be very well advanced in its consideration of these matters during the next three or four years. It will already have the experience of the present redistribution to build on. It will have that mass of information, although I have said already that, in the estimation of my advisers, there will be well over 90 constituencies which would have to be dedistibuted again, and that would have what I called a ripple effect on other constituencies, so that as many as 150 or 200 might be affected.
Nevertheless, the Commission will have a considerable residue of experience from the present redistribution to build on, and I have little doubt, from the way that these matters are conducted, that it will begin its preparations quite a long time in advance. By the time the new local authorities are set up, it may well be able


to begin very early consultations with them or, more likely, to publish a report.
Indeed, a report might be published based on the Boundary Commission's analysis of the proper constituencies at a time which would be very close indeed to that of the setting up of the new local authorities, and there need be very little lapse of time indeed or difference in time between the setting up of the local authorities and another report by the Boundary Commission.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: As I understand his argument, the right hon. Gentleman is relying on the words in Clause 1(3)(a), "as soon as it appears to him". There is a large number of areas in which the current Boundary Commission recommendations are in no way affected by Redcliffe-Maud. Why are they not included in the Bill, if it is really his intention to move forward as soon as it is clear that the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Committee will not clash with the work of the Boundary Commission?

Mr. Callaghan: So that the Boundary Commission shall be free to review the whole of the areas throughout the United Kingdom in the light of the new Redcliffe-Maud proposals. We do not know how the boundaries are to be drawn. This is an interesting proposition. We do not know how they will emerge and we want the Commission to be entirely free.
However, if the hon. Gentleman is right, and the number will not be altered from what it is now or from what we can see from Redcliffe-Maud, that will make the Boundary Commission's task that much easier. It seems to me that, soon after the new local authorities are established, the Boundary Commission, I think, will want to produce its report and then hear the representations made to it by local authorities and others and then to produce its final recommendations.
So I do not think that we need assume that we have automatically—indeed, it is clear that we shall not wait until 1983—[Laughter.] There is nothing funny about that. We shall not wait until 1983 to get a new report from the Boundary Commission. I should have thought that it would be 10 years earlier, in 1973

rather than 1983. That would be my view of the progress of events.

Mr. Clegg: As I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he was saying that the Boundary Commission would come along as soon as the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations began to take shape and then said that the Commission could listen to the objections of local authorities. But some of these local authorities would not then have been set up, so how could they be heard?

Mr. Callaghan: I would not regard it as proper to lay an Order in Council at such a time that the Commission could not consult the local authorities. That must obviously be part of the exercise. I should not refer to them "consulting" but to "hearing representations from" the local authorities. It would not be proper to lay an Order in Council until the local authorities existed and therefore could make such representations.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that this will be at quite an early stage. I would expect it, therefore, to take place certainly in the 1970s, in the first part of the 1970s. Therefore, although there is quite a case for fixing a date, we may be able to get to work earlier. On the other hand, it is conceivable that some local authorities might not be in existence by then and it would be advisable to fix a date at such a time that they will all be in existence so that they can make the necessary representations.
I do not reject the thinking behind the Amendment, but I would prefer not to put a date into the Bill but to leave the Order in Council to be brought forward at the earliest moment which seems consistent with local government reorganisation and which would not be premature arising out of it.
4.30 p.m
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) thinks that matters should be left to the Boundary Commission. They will be left to them in England and Wales. The Commission has fixed boundaries for London and we now propose to put them into force. It will again fix the parliamentary boundaries arising out of the new local government boundaries and there will be no interference in that sense. What we have always been discussing and are


discussing is at what time those new boundaries should come into force.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire that 25 to 30 years is too long, although it used to be the common pattern for it to be 25 to 30 years. I think that that is too long and on this occasion it will be nothing like that length of time.
An argument has been advanced about disparity in voting. That disparity has existed for a very long time both between country and town and between town and town, and it would exist even if the Boundary Commission's proposals were put into force; there would still be constituencies one nearly twice as large as another, so that one man's vote was worth twice as much as another man's vote. Even if we were to put those recommendations into force we should still not give the same value to every vote.
I recall that during the last General Election the Conservatives had a minority vote in 129 of the seats which they won, Labour had a minority vote in 43 and the Liberals had a minority vote in 11. How can we say that votes are exactly equal when the Conservatives were elected on a minority vote in 129 constituencies? But I do not wish to carry that argument too far, as it is outside the scope of the Amendment.
While I do not object to the idea of a date, I think it preferable to leave the position flexible so that an Order in Council may be introduced at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Boundary Commission cannot usefully begin their work until the new local authorities under the Redcliffe-Maud Report are established?

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Deedes: There has always seemed to me the likelihood of a long interval between the fixing of boundaries, after which we shall know roughly where we stand, and the vesting day on which new local authorities will come into existence. Why cannot the Boundary Commission start work after the first phase rather than after the second phase?

Mr. Callaghan: I feel that I did not make myself clear. I thought that I had

made clear what I expected would happen. I said that the Boundary Commission could get ahead and do a lot of preparatory work before the local authorities had been established on the ground. Once the boundaries have been decided and Parliament has passed the Act, there will be no reason at all why the Boundary Commission should not get ahead without waiting for local authorities to be in existence. I do not think that there is any difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself.

Mr. Deedes: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to feel that unless there were new local authorities in existence to whom representations could be made, the exercise could not begin.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in the Home Office that much preparatory work goes on before the tip of the iceberg appears above the surface of the water. The Boundary Commission could do a great part of the work which goes on before public representations were made to it about its report. I can see circumstances arising in which the establishment on the ground of the offices of the new local authorities was followed very quickly by the publication of a new Boundary Commission report because the Commission would have done all the preparatory work before the local authorities were set up.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The Home Secretary made his reply to the Amendment, so persuasively moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), in moderate terms—perhaps a moderation uncharacteristic of the speeches which he was delivering last week.

Mr. Charles Pannell: He was moderate then.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: His speeches may have sounded different from that side of the House. They sounded moderate to us in one sense, but not in the sense in which I was using the word—the sense of being temperate. If the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) is using the term "moderate" in the sense of being inferior in point of excellence, that is a different matter and I could well be disposed to accept that argument.
I welcome the more moderate and more temperate tone of the Home Secretary's speech, but I think that perhaps it was imposed upon him by the weakness of his case. In his admirable speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) prognosticated that there could be only one point of reply which the right hon. Gentleman was likely to make—that the date given in the Amendment was too early. In fact, as I understood him, that was not the main point of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. The main point appeared to be that it made no difference on the time scale and that, as it would make no difference, as Home Secretary he would like the benefit of the form which he has chosen and which he is pleased to call the more flexible form.
Do we want in important Acts of Parliament what the Home Secretary calls the more flexible form as it appears in the unamended version of the Bill? Clause 1(3) places a duty upon the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament a draft Order in Council
as soon as it appears to him that it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation there, be premature to do so;".
There are some words in the operative part of the subsection which are imprecise and which are capable of subjective evaluation. "As it appears to him"—that means that the test is the length of the Home Secretary's foot, to adapt the old phrase about equity. He is given an absolute discretion, and it could not be challenged. Unless he could be convicted of bad faith, anything which "appeared to him" in the exercise of his administrative discretion would stand up on challenge in the courts. That is a very wide subjective control for a Home Secretary.
The next imprecise wording is
the prospect of local government reorganisation there".
Again, that is an imprecise term of which the Home Secretary is to be the sole judge, as if he says
one step enough for me
and does
not ask to see the distant scene".
"Prospect" is left in imprecise terms and he is left as judge of it. I notice that the

Home Secretary is regarding me with some complacency as I give him this catalogue of the powers which he would have if he were still Home Secretary and which would not be open to challenge.

Mr. Callaghan: That was not the point. The point about which I was rather frowning at the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that I thought that the words in the subsection help the prospect of an early consideration because they refer to
the prospect of local government reorganisation.
They do not say that the prospect has to be fulfilled or that every local authority should be set up. Provided that there is a reasonable prospect of that taking place, he has the power, if he feels it appropriate to lay the Order in Council.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to paraphrase and interpret the Clause, but if he does so he must do so accurately. The words used are not "a reasonable prospect". If they were "a reasonable prospect", and it were a matter of objective test and objective fact, there might well be something to be said for it, but that is not what is in the Bill.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in fact, it is the prospect of local government reorganisation which has deferred the acceptance of the Boundary Commission's report?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I agree with that proposition.
The third word of imprecision is "premature", which is again left to the subjective assessment of the Home Secretary and is again unsatisfactory for that reason. If we are to accept that, in substance, this will not make any material difference to the calendar and that we are merely electing between two different forms of test—what the right hon. Gentleman called the flexible test and what we have described as the more precise test—it would be advantageous to accept the Amendment because it would add certainty to the matter and to the calendar, which the right hon. Gentleman says is probable in any event.
I am at a loss to see why the right hon. Gentleman objects to the Amendment. At the very least he should wish


to import into the subsection an objective test based on the assessment which he has made and the considerations he has put to the Committee. But he cannot do this because he has guillotined the Bill and thus has no time to make such a proposal. It is out of his power to improve the Bill in this way, although he owes it to the country to improve the Bill by accepting the Amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. John Mendelson.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. John Mendelson: I am grateful for those welcoming cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who will appreciate that I have been in my place for most of the discussion of the Bill. I hope that they will cheer me when I have got into my speech.
The temperate tone of the debate is appropriate to the important subject which we are discussing. Temperance has been the hallmark of my right hon. Friend's comments throughout these proceedings, echoed occasionally in speeches by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but only occasionally.
For example, I recall the speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), which I thought was the best speech made from the benches opposite in support of the Government's proposals. Unfortunately, when I attempted on several occasions to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as he spoke of regional and local problems, at least 40 hon. Gentlemen opposite bayed at me and did not permit me to congratulate him. I had uttered only two words when they shouted "Too long". Of course, they did not want me to congratulate their colleague, who was arguing exactly for what my right hon. Friend is proposing.

Sir D. Renton: On a point of order. Would it not be of greater value if the hon. Gentleman were to address his remarks to what has arisen on this Amendment, rather than to what occurred in previous debates?

Mr. Mendelson: Before you reply to that point of order, Mr. Irving, I trust that you will recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) spoke of the quality of the speeches that had been made, particularly by my right hon.

Friend. I trust that I am in order in commenting, albeit briefly, on the same subject.
I wanted to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Tavistock, because he spoke of the uncertainty in regional and local problems. This matter is relevant to the Amendment. We are discussing the contrast between a demand for stipulating a date and my right hon. Friend's reply about there being uncertainty over the situation. This is why he wants some flexibility.
I believe that it would not be wise at this stage to ignore the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member for Tavistock, including the problems of economic affairs, employment problems and local government and regional arrangements. These problems will be in the melting pot during the coming two, three or four years and whatever we do at a later stage at the hustings, we do not want to bring propaganda into the subject now before the Committee. I trust, therefore, that we will discuss this issue seriously and with moderation.
If, during the next two or three years, the discussions over proposals for local government reform have got under way, I do not expect that the proposals in the Redcliffe-Maud Report will be implemented in their entirety, exactly as they are. In the process of consultation new ideas will be suggested and changes will no doubt be introduced. Some of the proposals will be accepted in their entirety, while others will be amended. We are, therefore, faced with a situation of some uncertainty, which is what my right hon. Friend described.
4.45 p.m.
There is to be local government reorganisation and it is commonsense to argue that rather than have two redistributions within a period of five years— remembering all the upheaval that even one involves—we should allow for a degree of flexibility. I regret the alarming statements which appeared in the Sunday Press and which some hon. Gentlemen opposite made over the weekend—of the prospect of it being 1979 or 1983 before anything more is done. I object to their propaganda talk of 1984 and so on.
Those who have followed this matter and know what may happen in the next few years appreciate that propaganda


points of this sort are of no value. We are discussing a commonsense problem of how the House of Commons should arrange these matters in a practical way.

Mr. Keith Speed: If we accept the practical point of view which the hon. Gentleman has advanced, would he explain why we are establishing new police forces and new passenger transport authorities and so on which will be completely incompatible with Maud? Is he aware that we should wait until Redcliffe-Maud has been implemented before making these changes?

Mr. Mendelson: A long dissertation about amalgamating police forces would soon put me out of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If, on a later Amendment, I am able to discuss this matter, or if I can do so on Third Reading, I will be delighted to develop it.
We are considering a straightforward proposition. My right hon. Friend is simply saying that there should be flexibility in the Home Secretary's hands. After all, we should not talk in terms of the Boundary Commissioners deciding what Parliament must do. Indeed, I would be worried if anybody suggested that any Government must arrange the detailed composition of constituencies or anything else because of what is proposed.
My right hon. Friend explained that the Boundary Commission makes proposals. I have always understood the power of the House of Commons to be straightforward in this matter. We do not automatically accept what the Commissioners propose, any more than we accept the proposals of other groups. If we had to accept their proposals, they would not be proposals but decisions, and the House of Commons would then be abrogating its power to make decisions.
While a great deal of the work could be advanced, because of the ripple effect many constituencies would be seriously involved and it would be much better to wait and see how we get on. Assuming that some advance in the reorganisation of local government will be made in the early 1970s, and that much of the work is now preparatory, the date can be left to the decision of the Home Secre-

tary as a matter of commonsense. He would then be under an obligation to make a decision within those three or four years. That seems to be a sensible way of looking at the matter.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member extolls flexibility, but does he think that with any Government it is desirable for flexibility to be attained by giving such wide discretion to a Minister who is bound to be a politician?

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman asks a strictly relevant question and I welcome it. I do not accept what he says about this being a wide power. That is a propaganda term which has grown up during the last five days of debate. [Laughter]. Hon. Members may laugh, but that is the precise area of disagreement on the Amendment. It does not involve wide over-riding power, because limitations are set by the progress in the implementation of the new local government reforms and by the work which can be started when the local government boundaries have been announced, but before vesting day for the new authorities. It is not a wide power and it was circumscribed by my right hon. Friend this afternoon.
The difference between the Amendment and what my right hon. Friend proposes is very narrow, and that seems a good reason for supporting the Home Secretary.

Sir Douglas Glover: That was the first time for a long time that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has supported the Government, but I do not know that he helped the Government's case.
This afternoon the Home Secretary gave my right hon. and learned Friend the whole of his case for the Amendment. The basis of the Home Secretary's refusal of the Amendment was that our fears were groundless, that local government reorganisation was shortly to take place, at the most within a matter of two years—conveniently probably covering the period of the next General Election —so that this was not gerrymandering, but merely a commonsense approach.
If that is the right hon. Gentleman's sincere view, as this is a democratic assembly where there are bound to be


party divisions and suspicion on the Opposition side, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to be conciliatory, I do not understand why he does not accept the Amendment. That would prove that the right hon. Gentleman means what he says.
I do not believe that he does, and this is where the division between us occurs. He spoke as though the Redcliffe-Maud proposals were virtually a cut and dried scheme and that, after brief consultations, they would be implemented by Parliament and in operation by 1972 or thereabouts. Anybody who says that does not know what he is talking about, for this is the tenderest plant in the political field.
The Redcliffe-Maud proposals are about the total reorganisation of local government. If democracy is to work, there will have to be consultations between the present local authorities and those who may become the new authorities, and those consultations will be long, protracted, acrimonious and hurtful. If the Government are not to ride roughshod over the democratic principle, they would be wise to allow those consultations to go on for some time. If they do not, they will again be flouting the democratic principle.
It is not enough to produce the right system what is important is to convince people that it is the right system. Nobody who knows anything about politics would deny that in any place in the country, chosen by sticking a pin in a map, one could make out a strong case against the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That is why it is much more likely that the Bill to implement the proposals will not come before Parliament until about 1975 or 1976, much more likely than 1972, and that validates our worries. We shall be dealing with boundary changes which will not become operative until the 1980s, and this is the fulcrum of the whole of our argument.
If the right hon. Gentleman believes that there is nothing in our argument, that it is invalidated by experience, he should now accept the Amendment and set our fears at rest. That would show his sincerity. If he does not accept the Amendment, and he does not have time to introduce one of his own, we must continue to believe that the Bill is designed for changes not for two or three years, but for 10 years or even more.

Mr. Michael Noble: Will the Home Secretary take the Committee a little further into his confidence? This is a problem to which he must have given much thought and attention. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I myself was involved in considerable negotiations with local authorities in Scotland about some changes a few years ago. They accepted that change was needed and they got down to doing some work.
The present Secretary of State set up a Royal Commission, after a hiccough in the negotiations, and it was hoped that that Royal Commission would report last autumn. It still has not done so. That indicates, if nothing else, the size of the problems inherent in changes of this sort. That being so, it follows necessarily that once the report is produced, there will be a long period of great controversy.
That will be simply about where the boundaries are to go. The Home Secretary will know that that, however, is only the first part of the problem. Once the boundaries have been decided, and that often involves contentious decisions, one has to consider the whole problem of how the new authorities within the new boundaries are to be financed, and this is a subject which the Commission did not even begin to consider. A great deal of work will have to be done on that subject, too.
5.0 p.m.
As I see it, therefore, there is a very real problem concerning the period which must develop between the time when the Royal Commissions report and the time that any Government could begin to formulate policy and decide to take action. I would guess that for any Government which wants to act in a democratic and sensible way—it would be disastrous for the whole of Government and local government if it were otherwise this must involve a delay for discussions, arguments and representations of about two and a half to three years.
Once one has accepted that—and I do not think that the Home Secretary would disagree—there is the question of parliamentary drafting and getting the Bill in proper form. I think I am right in saying that the last Local Government Bill, in 1929, was one of several hundred Clauses. This is a technical feat for the


Parliamentary draftsmen. I am not sure that they have speeded up at all in the last 40 years. A period of perhaps eight or nine months would be necessary to get a Bill of that sort drafted and through the various legislative committees which, I hope, all Governments regard as necessary before the Bill is presented to the House.
Therefore, there would inevitably be a period of between three and a half and five years at the minimum before this House could see a Bill and pass it, and it will not be an easy Bill to get through.
If I am wrong, I hope that the Home Secretary will correct me, but that is what is normally expected of a Bill of that character and with the discussions which are necessary before it is produced. If I am right, the earliest that the Bill could come before the House is probably 1974. If that is so, we are playing with words in talking about the early part of the 1970s. It will be marginally just before the halfway mark. I do not think that I am in any way exaggerating.
By all means let the Boundary Commission start its work in 1973 or in whatever period the final pattern looks like being reasonably crystallised. Surely, however, the Home Secretary is not saying that the Boundary Commission can finalise its recommendations to this House until vesting date after that. I do not know what the Home Secretary's ideas are, but he must have his own ideas. I do not think that he has been entirely fair to the Committee in giving the sort of dates which he thinks are reasonable and proper.
Everybody appreciates that there must be a period between the passing of the Bill by Parliament and the setting up of the new local authorities, and it is only after vesting date that the Boundary Commission can finish its task. We are not, therefore, talking about a decision which is likely to come for new Boundary Commission proposals in the early part of the 1970s. The Home Secretary would be much more honest if he told us that, at very best, we will not get the new Commission's proposals before 1977, which is already in the period which he considers too long, and, therefore, accepted the Amendment. That is the only honest thing to do and I hope that he will be able to do it.

Mr. Speed: The Home Secretary was more than somewhat bogus in his arguments and perhaps we can dispose of one of them straight away. Whereas during the weekend Ministers were using the bogus argument about minority votes and all the rest, we are arguing on the rules as laid down in the 1945, 1949 and 1958 Acts. If the Government wish to adopt the ideas of the Liberals or of anyone else on proportional representation, they are entitled to bring them forward for discussion. At the moment, however, we are operating on the earlier Acts.
It is a fact that since the war no Government, including the 1945 Labour Government, which has been elected has had a majority of the votes cast. They have all been minority Governments with less than 50 per cent. of the votes cast. Therefore, let us scrap that bogus, spurious argument, which has nothing to do with the current debate. The current debate concerns the changing of the rules without consulting the political parties, the Boundary Commission or anybody else, apart, possibly, from the chief agent in Transport House—and the Prime Minister told us that she had been consulted some months back.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member should give us the source for that remark. I do not believe it to be true.

Mr. Speed: The right hon. Gentleman may remember that when the Prime Minister was answering, he said that he had discussed with the most experienced national agent he knew the effect of the Boundary Commission's proposals throughout the country. I presume that he was not referring to the chief agent in Conservative Central Office. If he was, I willingly withdraw.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has been through the mathematics. Let us look at it in detail, because this is germane to the date of 1972. There is, first, the question of when the Redcliffe-Maud Report will be implemented. If the Home Secretary—or any hon. Member—were to come to the West Midlands, he would find that a furious debate is going on about the whole of those proposals. Indeed, many local authorities and their officials to


whom I have spoken are rather more inclined to favour Mr. Senior's proposals than the majority Report of the Commission. Be that as it may, there must obviously be full consultation and discussion.
I will give one example. If the Redcliffe-Maud proposals were to be implemented—and implemented, presumably, in the near future—they would mean that in the Birmingham metropolitan district, instead of having one councillor for roughtly each 9,000 electors, there would be one councillor for each 17,500 electors. For my constituency, this would mean one and a half councillors representing about 12 villages over a wide rural district serving on the Birmingham council. That is why the arguments are going on. I agree with my hon. Friends who say that it is unlikely that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals will be implemented in the near future.
If the Redcliffe-Maud proposals are implemented later and then the Orders in Council are laid, according to subsection (2,b) the Boundary Commission then has four years in which to submit its report. We know that for the present proposals the Commission started work nearly four years ago. It takes about four years to get the results through when there is a major redistribution. It may be possible to cut down somewhat, although I doubt it on a major exercise of this sort. Even if the Redcliffe-Maud proposals were implemented by 1972–73, which is a grossly optimistic date, that still takes us up to 1975, 1976 or 1977. That is why, in some ways, the Amendment may not go far enough.
There is, however, another point concerning redistribution. It has been possible under existing legislation, as is the case under the Bill, that redistribution proposals cannot be implemented until the following General Election. No one knows when the following election will be. If we are working on the present situation, we may have an election in the autumn of 1970, possibly another in 1974–75 and the next one would be likely to be in 1978–79. Therefore, even if all these things were tied up by 1976–77, we must wait until about 1978–79 before they will be implemented, and any by-elections which are fought up to the date of that General Election will still be on the old boundaries.
The Home Secretary will know, and I hope that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will know, that by that time there will be a large number of constituencies, including mine, which will have 150,000-plus electors. This cannot be acceptable to anyone. If the right hon. Gentleman argues that it is only a question of time and that the Maud proposals will be implemented by 1976–77, he must accept the Amendment. If, on his own admission, there must be full consultation and that it may be some time before the Redcliffe-Maud Report is implemented, we come back to what we on this side have been saying for a long time, namely, that it will be 10 years before there is redistribution.
I draw the attention of the Home Secretary to paragraph 39 on page 7 of the Report of the Boundary Commission for England, which states:
We cannot, however, escape the fact that the intention of the present law is that a general review shall form the basis of constituency boundaries for at least the next ten years.…
We are now talking in terms of 1978 to 1979. If, as the Commission says, the present law will cover the situation for the next 10 years, it seems to me, making an optimistic assessment, and to many commentators, that by the end of that time we shall have another redistribution.
The only way to stop the inconvenience of redistribution is to stop people moving about. We have great new developments like Milton Keynes and new towns in Lancashire. We have large overspill populations. We all want to improve the housing situation in our great cities. I do not think that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. They were not even prepared to accept Amendments allowing for interim reports. The Boundary Commission's proposals should be implemented straight away. If that cannot be done, as a second best, the Amendment proposes a trigger date. If it is not accepted, the whole matter will be left at the discretion of the Minister. Unless something like the Amendment is accepted, it will be 1978 or 1979 before a General Election is fought with redistributed seats, by which time the situation in many constituencies will be intolerable.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: The Home Secretary deployed


some remarkable arguments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) said, he referred to the fact that on previous occasions Conservative Members had been returned on minority votes and that on other occasions even Governments had been returned to power on minority votes. The fact that an existing electoral set-up, arrived at by an independent Commission, favours one party rather than another is no excuse for the other party embarking on a unilateral book-cooking operation such as the one on which the Government have resolved to embark.
Unless the Amendment is accepted, we could be in the 1980s before we fight a General Election taking into account population changes which have taken place since 1954. The Home Secretary said, "Do not worry. It will be all right on the day". Although by the Bill the Government are taking powers to delay any changes to the boundaries which can affect an election until the 1980s, the right hon. Gentleman says, "You need not worry because in our judgment is will be possible to carry out the local government boundary changes in the early 1970s and as soon as that is done we can go ahead with the Parliamentary boundary changes". In effect, he is saying, "Trust me. Although the Bill gives me power to delay the changes until the late 1970s, they will take place in the early 1970s".
My answer is that we do not trust the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that anybody on this side of the Committee trusts him in view of the Government's conduct since the introduction of the Bill so short a time ago. We should be concerned not with what the Minister says he may do within the framework of the legal powers in the Bill, but with what power should be given to the Minister bearing in mind what has gone on in recent weeks.
I agree entirely with what has been said about the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. I know of the opposition to them in my part of the country and I am sure that it will grow. It is foolhardy and disingenuous to suggest that those proposals will be implemented by any Government in the early years of the 1970s. If the Bill is not amended, we shall give the Government of the day powers to postpone boundary revisions until a General

Election in the early 1980s. Goodness knows what population changes will have taken place by then. The electorate in the Ladywood division of Birmingham may be only 10,000 strong by that time. The Labour pocket boroughs in Manchester and Liverpool will be perhaps 5,000 strong apiece.
It is outrageous seriously to put forward an argument of administrative convenience, as the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) did. We on this side of the Committee are concerned to ensure that the electoral system reflects, as far as possible, the aspirations of the people and that, by and large, "one man, one vote" means just that. That is more important than questions of administrative convenience and the upset which would follow as a result of one Boundary Commission having to consider these matters fairly shortly after another.
Nobody thinks that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals have anything to do with the Government's decision. It is obvious to anyone of the meanest intellect that they have no relevance. We continually hear from the Home Secretary about the ripple effects which there will be in no fewer than 90 constituencies. It is remarkable that the only person who can see that number of ripples is the Home Secretary. Informed observers throughout the country talk in terms of 10 or 20 constituencies.
I invite the Committee to think seriously before allowing the Bill to go forward unamended, because it undoubtedly gives power to postpone necessary changes in the Parliamentary boundaries, not until 1972 or 1974 or until after the date when the Home Secretary says that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals will have been implemented, but until the late 1970s and possibly until it is far too late for them to influence a General Election in the 1970s.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: It was not my intention to participate in this debate but, because of the misunderstanding on the Opposition benches I think that it would be helpful perhaps if I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) in trying to assist the Committee to understand the issues.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) took up the


point made by an hon. Member opposite in an intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, namely, that a large number of constituencies will be unaffected by the RedcliffeMaud Report. This is a remarkable statement because it seems to indicate that some hon. Members opposite have already decided, without any democratic process of consultation with local authorities or debate on the Report in the House of Commons, that the proposals in the majority report are to be implemented without the views of outside bodies being considered.

Mr. Clegg: Does the hon. Member remember that the Prime Minister has accepted Redcliffe-Maud in principle?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I can only advise the hon. Gentleman to re-read HANSARD and study what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister has, quite rightly, said that the Government accept the wide proposals for the reorganisation of local government based upon larger units. What he did not do was to accept the areas of local government suggested by the majority report.

Mr. Speed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary, when dealing with my constituency, said that special arrangements could not be made, because my constituency overlapped two of the unitary areas as suggested by Redcliffe-Maud?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am coming to that. My argument is that it is not possible to say with any finality or precision which areas will or will not be affected with the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
The Home Secretary has referred to the hon. Gentleman's constituency as being affected by two of the unitary areas suggested in the majority report. It may be that after due consultation with local authorities and after debate the House may adopt Mr. Senior's minority Report which will set up 148 unitary councils. On the other hand, after consultation, we may find that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there may be more or less than two unitary authorities.
We do not know, and this is the kernel of the Government's case. The essence of the case is that it is because there is this state of flux in local government areas

that it would be folly to reorganise the parliamentary constituencies. In my judgment and in that of those who try to look at this matter dispassionately, putting aside the need, which we understand, of the Opposition to generate political heat in the last two or three weeks of the Session, this is correct. We understand that the Opposition want to cause a good deal of fuss about this before the House goes into the Summer Recess. I understand why there is this "phoney" battle, but let us try to put aside such things and concentrate on the real issues.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman said that anything may happen following the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. Presumably he means that perhaps nothing will happen. If nothing happens, how can it be a good excuse for postponing Boundary Commission changes?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman must listen to the argument. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) intervened to remind us of what the Prime Minister had said. My right hon. Friend said that the one thing we do accept is that there will be some reorganisation, because there is a clear case for larger units. I cannot understand how the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) can continue to make such silly points.
It is desirable that parliamentary constituencies should, as far as possible, conform to local government boundaries. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) intervened during my right hon. Friend's speech to ask when it would be proper for the Boundary Commission to start looking at constituencies. He asked whether it would be when the new local authorities had actually taken office, after vesting date, or whether it could be in the interim period. I was delighted to hear the Home Secretary say that it could be after the Bill for local government reorganisation has passed through this House and we know what the boundaries would be.
This is precisely what happened in London. After the London Government Bill had passed through the House the local authorities joined together in consultative committees. I had the pleasure of serving on the consultative committee for what was then Borough No. 18 under


the terms of the London Government Act. Under that committee the re-warding of the London Borough No. 18 took place. The Boundary Commissioners, in this report, have followed almost to the letter the re-warding that took place then in their recommendations for Greater London. I assume that exactly the same procedure will take place.
We will not have to wait until 1980 or 1985 for a General Election to be fought upon the new Parliamentary boundaries. This is a complete distortion of the situation. I can recall the situation over the Greater London area. I remember the Bill going through the House. What was the timetable between the publication of the Herbert Commission Report and the implementation of that report? When we are talking about reorganisation it is fair to use this as a comparison. The report was published in 1961 and the Bill was before the House in 1963.
It is worth recalling that the speed between the publication of the report and its implementation was assisted by the use of the Guillotine by the Party opposite on Report and upon consideration of Lords Amendments. This is why a lot of us think that the argument about this Bill is so "phoney", particularly when it comes from hon. Members opposite who ruthlessly used the Guillotine to decimate local authority areas in Greater London.
If that was the situation under the Tory Government, even without the same degree of ruthless determination that the party opposite showed in destroying London government, it is possible that before 1972–73 we shall have a Bill before the House. If my right hon. Friends form the next Government, I am sure that, unless there is patent obstruction, such as we are witnessing over this Bill, it will not be necessary to follow the disgraceful example of using the Guillotine so much on local government reform.
It is clear that the next General Election after the one which will be held shortly, in another 18 to 20 months, could be fought on new Parliamentary boundaries. It would be possible to have the Redcliffe-Maud proposals through the House without the use of the Guillotine, possibly, and the interim period between 1971 and 1972 being used by the local

authoities for consultation and re-warding. Concurrently the Boundary Commission could be considering the situation and we could have a recasting of Parliamentary boundaries not long after the implementation of local government reform in England.
If this is the case then I believe the whole argument, which most people realise to be "phoney", for the reasons I have already stated, and a little letting off of political steam before the Recess, falls to the ground, because we shall not be going into the '80s or 1985 with these old Parliamentary boundaries. I therefore hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment and that we shall be able to pass swiftly on to other, more interesting, Amendments awaiting our consideration.

[SIR BARNETT JANNER in the Chair]

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has said, in effect, that the argument that a large number of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission could be implemented as of now without interfering with the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations indicates that we are assuming that the Redcliffe-Maud Report would be implemented without any form of amendment. He must realise that in large parts of these areas the Boundary Commission's recommendations do not cut across borders but come in the middle or on the peripheries of great cities. No one, by the most extreme stretch of imagination, really imagines that any local government reform will cut across great cities where the small constituencies are and where the peripheries are part of an urban conurbation.
It is absolutely bogus to use that argument. All the hon. Member was doing by suggesting that there probably will have to be various modifications of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals was to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who drew attention to the fact that these matters are notoriously controversial, not merely between parties but within parties and constituencies, and they do take a very long time.
The hon. Member said that the Herbert Committee reported in 1961, but this idea of local government reform had been rumbling along before then, and there had been controversy and discussion


about it since 1948. The hon. Member said the Herbert Committee reported in 1961 and we had the Bill in 1963; but we did not have the G.L.C. functioning, as far as I can recall, until the beginning of 1965. I would put it to him, when he talks about ideas for local government reform, that what is important and very far-reaching is its possible effects on the future careers and pension arrangements of local government staff involved.
In the London Government Act we did not abolish the whole concept of the London boroughs and the like, but what the Redcliffe-Maud Report is proposing is the abolition of the whole concept of rural districts and urban districts and municipal boroughs, and all this will bring an enormous problem of making reasonably fair arrangements for those local authority officials who will be redundant.

Mr. Wellbeloved: rose—

Mr. Corfield: I am not going to give way.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I thought the hon. Member would not.

Mr. Corfield: I will later. If the hon. Member will study the map attached to Mr. Senior's report he will see that in most of the great cities there is no prospect whatever of the Boundary Commission's proposals conflicting with the Redcliffe-Maud Report, or Mr. Senior's Report.
We have had far too many of these entirely "phoney" arguments from the other side. The Home Secretary himself talked about—

Mr. Wellbeloved: Before the hon. Member leaves Greater London, will he recall that well over 100 local authorities were completely wiped out in the London area to make way for 32 boroughs, and for the local government officers and staff those considerations applied?

Mr. Corfield: No. If I recall rightly—I stand to be corrected—there was practically no case in which the new boundaries cut through the old local authorities. There were amalgamations into greater ones.
The Home Secretary raised the question of people being elected on minority votes. He knows as well as I do that

this depends on the number of constituencies in which there is intervention by third parties—and it is the Liberal Party which is mainly responsible for those. It depends upon the number of Liberal candidates, and if the Liberal Party has more candidates in the field—

Mr. Thorpe: rose—

Mr. Corfield: I will give way in a moment—and happens to put some into seats which ultimately want to be Conservative this has an effect, and I hope the Liberals will go on doing it in my area, for it helps me enormously. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not withdraw his Liberal candidate—

Mr. Thorpe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to state the position accurately in dealing with the question of minority members being returned. I am sure he will appreciate that a minority Government can be returned, and that this could perfectly easily happen even in a straight vote in all 630 constituencies.

Mr. Corfield: That is an argument for proportional representation, which, as I understand it, is not the substance of this Bill or of this Amendment or, indeed, of the Home Secretary's argument.
The fact is that here again one is bound to suspect the bona fides of the Government when they put forward this sort of argument. The Home Secretary has nobody but himself to blame if we find that the thinking which lies behind his excuse carries no conviction. It would be no compliment to him if we put it down merely to his inability to straighten out his thoughts. He said that the Amendment would be quite acceptable but he preferred the more flexible approach, and when he tried, in response to my right hon. Friend, to interpret what he meant by the more flexible approach he said, in effect, "This enjoins me to get on as fast as I can." It does not do anything of the sort. The Bill is framed in the negative. He need not do so and should not do so, according to the Bill, till such time as there is no danger of any recommendation of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission conflicting with a Boundary Commission's report.
I would suggest that till the Government realise that there really is a strong,


genuinely-held feeling on this side of the Committee that this is generally thought to be gerrymandering they will not do justice to the principles which we in this country hold most precious; and they will not do so by simply refusing to accept Amendments which they themselves admit would not seriously embarrass the purposes of the Bill.
I beg the Home Secretary, when he has finished talking to his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), from whom I doubt that he will get any good advice at all, to try to put the reputation of this country and our high traditions above narrow party prejudices.

Mr. Albert Murray: Some of the points which have been made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) ought not to go unchallenged. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) made the very good and very true point—as he always does—that the Herbert Commission reported in 1961 and that then the Conservative Party got its Bill in 1963 and rushed it through the House purely because that party realised that it would be of some electoral advantage to it in the Greater London area.
It is no good Conservative Members saying, "We had been thinking about it since 1948", because we have had too much of that from the Conservative Party. It is always thinking about things but is never active unless it has something like the Herbert Commission Report which it gerrymandered. The Conservatives did not insist on the Herbert Commission's Report in toto—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Sir Barnett. Is it in order on this Amendment to this Bill to resume the extremely interesting debates which we had over the London Government Bill, 1963?

Mr. Murray: They would have been interesting only because the right hon. Gentleman was involved—for no other reason.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of order. While thanking the hon. Member for his habitual courtesy, could I have a reply to my point of order?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): The hon. Member cannot go into the details of that matter but, if it is relevant, he may refer to it in support of the Amendment with which he is particularly dealing.

Sir D. Renton: Further to that point of order. I dare say, Sir Barnett, you will have studied the Amendment, and you will have seen that it deals only with the question of the timing of the next general review by the Boundary Commission.

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order. It has been pointed out that comparisons of timing are of the essence of the debate. My hon. Friend is doing just that, and is, I submit perfectly in order.

The Temporary Chairman: May I help the hon. Member by saying that hon. Gentlemen cannot rehash the matter and go into detail? That matter can be touched upon provided it is relevant. The question is its relevancy to the Amendment which we are discussing. We certainly cannot debate its merits or demerits.

Mr. Murray: I am sorry, Sir Barnett, to have caused you points of order in such profusion, but I think that you have ruled quite rightly. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) went into great detail about the merits of the London Government Act—

The Temporary Chairman: I did not notice that. Perhaps the hon. Member might get on with his speech and keep it within the bounds of order.

Mr. Murray: We must talk about the timing, and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford was drawing an analogy with the present situation. The Home Secretary has given an assurance that there could be a rejigging of the Parliamentary boundaries, subject to the Redcliffe-Maud Report. After the Bill has been passed, my right hon. Friend should consider the possibility almost of a running Boundary Commission.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, in speaking of the comparison of timing, said that, although the London Government Bill became law in 1963 the Greater London Council did not begin to


operate until 1965. What he failed to point out, and what should go on the record, is that the Greater London Council elections were held in 1964 and the Greater London Council was operating in a twin capacity with the former London County Council. Whatever may be said, the alterations in London were tremendous. In my view, the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In the period between 1964 and 1965, under the gerrymandering London Government Act, the electors of London were denied the opportunity of electing councillors to the existing local authorities.

Mr. Murray: As I have said, my hon. Friend makes some very good points, and he has just made another one which adds to the reasons why the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said that uncertainty in local government was a justification for a prolongation of the gross distortion in the parliamentary representation of the United Kingdom, a distortion which must increase every year. I take the contrary view, that it would be far better to rectify the worst of that distortion and to have time to look in detail at the needs of local government.
I am astonished that the Home Secretary has not found it possible to accept this moderate Amendment which has been so reasonably put. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said that the Home Secretary expressed his case in very moderate terms, and I agree. For many years the Home Secretary and I have represented adjoining constituencies, and in that respect he has always been a moderate person. He is a fairly clean politician, and I should have thought that he would have seen the dangers of doing something by inadvertence. I do not envisage him as a man who would gerrymander on a wide scale, but cannot he see that as a consequence of his action virtually the same effect will be achieved? Although he and his hon. Friends are so quick to denounce gerrymandering overseas, their actions here have exactly the same consequences.
5.45 p.m.
The Home Secretary has been forced back on to two unworthy arguments; first, the argument about minority votes, which is quite unconnected with the present Amendment, and, second, the argument that in the past we frequently had periods of 25 years between boundary changes. The Home Secretary knows very well that that was at a time when there was much less population movement, when no new towns were being created by the action of the Government and when conditions were completely dissimilar. I cannot understand why he should adopt those two arguments, which serve only to illustrate the weakness of his case.
I sympathise with the case put forward by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), that Parliament should not be a rubber stamp for the findings of commissions and inquiries. I accept that as a general proposition of validity. On the other hand, this is a particular part of our affairs in which Parliament should be chary of making changes in the recommendations of impartial commissions. In this more than in any other matter neither Governments nor Oppositions can easily be impartial. We are politicians as well as Members of Parliament and, however noble our sentiments, however high our aspirations, it is extraordinarily difficult for us to ignore the fact that we are politicians. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see this—

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman says that he is a politician, but is he quite sure that he and those behind him are pursuing this matter with a high degree of objectivity?

Mr. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman will recall what Major Gwilym Lloyd George did as Home Secretary in 1953 or 1954. He did not interfere with the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. He was criticised by hon. Members on both sides, and by many of my hon. Friends who had constituency problems. He took the view, rightly, that he would be more open to suspicion and attack if he made unilateral changes in the findings of an impartial commission.
The Home Secretary should exercise more caution. It is not that I and others suspect him of ignoble or unworthy


motives, but what he has done will create this impression, because the effect is to distort the representation in various parts of the country—

Mr. C. Pannell: I was here when Major Gwilym Lloyd George was Home Secretary, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that it could not have been high objectivity that caused the then Home Secretary to make that decision. The Labour Party was at a disadvantage because of the concentration of Labour votes in mining districts of which gave the Conservatives about 1½ per cent. advantage on the national figure. This was the result of the 1954 proposals. That is why he was criticised then; he was not very objective. He was generally a lazy man when he wanted to be, but he knew what he was doing then.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: On a point of order, Sir Barnett. That is a most unworthy remark by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Charles Pannell) and he should withdraw it.

The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid I cannot rule on it as being un-parliamentary, but I am sure that the hon. Member's remarks have been noted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Sir Barnett, may I respectfully ask you to indicate whether it is not within the custom and convenience of this House that hon. or right hon. Members do not cast aspersions on former colleagues now dead who were the friends of many of us?

Mr. Pannell: How far do we go back?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I understand that the position is that a comment of this nature with regard to a living Member of another place would be out of order. Whatever may be thought about the observation itself, what the right hon. Gentleman said is not out of order.

Mr. Gower: I will not comment on the observation by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell). I still maintain that the Home Secretary of the day took a course less open to serious criticism under any Government—

Mr. David Griffiths: On the hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. Gower: Any Home Secretary in taking a decision in matters as delicate as these, where political suspicion is easily aroused, should not take unilateral action to make changes of the kind the Government are seeking to make. The Amendment does not accomplish what we want, but we suggest that it is a modest improvement of the Bill and it will be a serious matter if it is not accepted.
The Home Secretary is saying that he cannot guarantee action even if nothing is done by 1972. How serious will the situation be if nothing is done by 1972 and with no prospect of anything being done by then? It will mean that a constituency like Meriden will be bursting at the seams with a 130,000 electors or more, and that constituencies like Birmingham, Ladywood, will be almost denuded of electors. That is certainly a possibility. Some constituencies will be at the 90,000 or 100,000 mark, others will go down to 20,000 electors. This would not be reasonable.
It is reasonable for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) to have a smaller electorate than the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) because he has an infinitely larger constituency to cover. But it is certainly not reasonable for my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) to have to represent over 100,000 electors and for another hon. Member near at hand to have to represent only 20,000 electors.
I cannot understand why the Home Secretary has turned his attention to the constituency of Billericay which is one of the very large ones, and Arundel and Shoreham, but has wholly neglected constituencies with very small electorates. Why has he taken action to deal with some of the anomalies in electorates of gross size and neglected some of the anomalies in the very small constituencies? I make no accusation of motive against the Home Secretary, but I feel sure that the logical result of his action will lead to distortions which may lead to a feeling that something is being done from a bad motive.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend will have in mind in this part of his speech the legal maxim that people should be presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts.

Mr. Gower: As usual my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker Smith) has produced the perfect caption to illustrate my point. I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on this matter. What will be the situation facing a Home Secretary at that future time when he is confronted with this Bill and when there is some prospect of local government changes? It is almost inevitable that the Home Secretary in 1972 will face that position. It is imperative that this date should appear in the Bill, it is a serious matter, and I hope the Home Secretary and the Government will think again.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: We have heard some extremely strong arguments from this side of the House which have led the Home Secretary to look extremely naked. We have also had a good deal of smokescreen from the other side to try to conceal the target. I would suggest to the Committee that an additional reason for not delaying indefinitely the proposals of the Boundary Commission is the effect on opinion abroad.
It is often said that we sit here in the mother of Parliaments and that Britain has one of the longest traditions, if not the longest, of striking a balance between the people and the Executive which is regulated by Parliament. The point I am trying to make— and I hope I can have the courtesy of the Home Secretary's attention at this moment—

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is following a custom that is growing in this House of assuming that I must sit and listen to every word that is said. It is a little intolerable if I have to sit in the Chamber—and I have sat here for a long time—and am not allowed the courtesy of consulting people about various matters that arise.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Following on that point, is almost becoming the practice of Ministers to turn their backs, with little courtesy, on an hon. Member who is addressing the House and who is seeking to show that this Government is trying to ram down the throats of the House and of the country proposals against which the Opposition are doing their best to make representation.
The point that I was trying to make is the deplorable effect it will have in the

daughter parliaments if the Prime Minister of Britain appears to be blatantly gerrymandering to try to preserve his own political life. The same deplorable effects are likely to arise in other parts of the world where Parliamentary democracies do not exist and where people yearn for freedom to express their views.

Mr. John Mendelson: May I say with respect, Sir Barnett, that we are listening to a Second Reading speech which has nothing to do with the Amendment that is before the Committee.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am trying to put forward a point of view on this very important matter, which hitherto has not been raised on either side of the House. I fear that what the world will say is that this is an inward-looking, short-term Government and that the Prime Minister is flying by the seat of his pants. There are very big issues at stake.

Mr. John Mendelson: I submit again, Sir Barnett, with urgency, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech. He is nowhere near the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: I am watching the proceedings as carefully as I can. I assume that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will relate what he is saying to the Amendment; otherwise he will be out of order.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Surely what my hon. and gallant Friend is saying is that if the Amendment is not given effect to certain deleterious consequences will follow, consequences which he is now outlining to the Committee.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order. I am in some sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but if his argument is a good one he ought to reflect on the extreme sensitivity of his own colleagues in rising on every possible point of order during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray), who was keeping far closer to the Amendment than is the admiral to the burning deck.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think hon. Members can expect me to try to distinguish between points of order which have been raised previously and


this particular point of order. We are dealing with the point of order that is now being raised. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Amendment. One right hon. Gentleman suggested that an hon. Member could speak about anything relating to criticism without relating it to the Amendment itself in words. I am afraid that that will not do. An hon. Member must in some way or other connect what he is saying with the Amendment itself.

6.0 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I was hoping that I was more in order than the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was a few minutes ago when he referred in an unpleasant way to a late colleague of ours.
I was making the point that the effect—

Mr. C. Pannell: How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that? He was not even here.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Sir Barnett. Is it correct for the right hon. Gentleman to say from a sedentary position that I was not in the House when he made those offensive comments to which I have referred?

The Temporary Chairman: It is not correct for any hon. Member to say anything from a sedentary position. It is not only not in order but rather undesirable.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I think that I have made the point that if the Amendment is refused it will create a deplorable effect throughout the world—

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Sir Barnett. I repeat with urgency that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is nowhere near the Amendment. He is engaging in the tedious repetition of international opinion and has not said a word about the Amendment. I do not know whether he has read it.

The Temporary Chairman: I have given my decision with regard to that point of order, and I am watching the position carefully.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John

Mendelson) comes into the category once described by Disraeli as those who are friends of every country save their own—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must proceed to make whatever remarks he wishes to make relevant to the Amendment. If he will do that, I think that he will have no trouble.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My precise point is that if the Amendment is refused it will create a deplorable international opinion. Therefore I urge the Home Secretary to accept it and thereby get the Prime Minister off what one of my hon. Friends described so vividly as the hook of ignominy.

Mr. Peter Hordern: When he intervened on behalf of the Government, the Home Secretary said that there was very little between the two sides on the Amendment, that the Government did not wish to be tied down to any specific date, but that the time scale was not unreasonable to him and that it was quite probable that the Orders would be brought before the House at about the same time. He also said that the Home Office would do its work in the customary way and be in a position to consult the local authorities concerned so that the Orders could be tabled as rapidly as possible.
The arguments about timing would have been more effective if they had been produced before the Redcliffe-Maud Committee reported rather than after. Apart from that, the real difficulty arises in the terms of the Bill to which the Amendment relates.
When the Boundary Commission does its work, the Home Secretary must then produce orders. According to subsection (3)(a), he
…shall lay before Parliament a draft of such an Order in Council for any part of the United Kingdom as soon as it appears to him that it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation there, be premature to do so.
In other words, he has to lay an Order before the House provided that there is no prospect of local government reorganisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) was told that his constituency was excluded because it cut


across two local government boundaries. But so desperate have the Government been to find some degree of respectability for their Bill that they have sought to find some constituencies which they could put before the consideration of the Boundary Commission. My own constituency is among the few that they have chosen, but it so happens that my constituency is directly affected by the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. Therefore, when the Boundary Commission considers my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby), it will produce proposals which are bound to be affected by the local government review of the Redcliffe-Maud Committee. That means either that the House will be debarred from considering that recommendation or that my constituency will be treated differently from others.
The Home Secretary must address himself seriously to this problem. If we are to consider this Clause which says that no Orders should be drafted if there is any prospect of local government reorganisation, why is it that some constituencies have to be considered in the certain knowledge that they will be affected by the Redcliffe-Maud proposals? That illustrates the kind of muddle into which the Government have got themselves by producing the Bill so rapidly.
The fact is, as we have seen from the beginning of these proceedings, that the Bill is one big fiddle, and it should be treated as such.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I would have had some sympathy with the Amendment if the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) could have shown that its acceptance would mean that in some way we would ensure that one vote had one value. However, I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman has made out that case.
In my consideration of the matter, I looked back to what the late Sir Winston Churchill had to say about it, when he was the right hon. Member for Woodford. It is extremely pertinent. In 1948, he had this to say:
In discussing constitutional questions of this character, it is desirable to emphasise at the outset the points upon which we are in general agreement. We all value and cherish our broad free Parliamentary system, and it is our duty to submit ourselves with all the grace we can to whatever may be the will

of the people from time to time, subject to the procedure of Parliament and to the inalienable rights of the minority.
I hope that that has the support of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because the impression gained by some of us on this side of the Committee is that that procedure is all right so long as the Conservative Party is in office. Whenever it is in opposition, circumstances change immediately and one is expected to run government rather differently.
Mr. Churchill, as he then was, went on:
In regard to the representation of the House of Commons, there are two principles"—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. While I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's speech is an interesting one to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to relate it to the Amendment in some way. That is the important matter.

Mr. Roebuck: I am grateful to you, Sir Barnett.
Perhaps I should explain that I was first seeking to put forward what is the principle on which the Committee should approach the Amendment, and then I was going on to develop the case with regard to the Amendment. I assure you that I will not fall into the error which some hon. Members opposite have fallen—

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is unthinkable.

Mr. Roebuck: As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) says, such a failing on my part would be unthinkable.
Sir Winston went on:
In regard to the representation of the House of Commons, there are two principles which have come into general acceptance.…The first is: 'One man, one vote'; and the second is: 'One vote, one value'. The first has been almost entirely achieved. There are only barely a quarter of a million votes out of 34 million which are not at present governed by the principle of one man, one vote.' With regard to one vote, one value,' nothing like so much progress has been made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 858.]
The onus is on the Opposition to show that acceptance of the Amendment would in some way help to achieve the one


vote, one value. My experience is that in 12 out of the last 14 elections the Labour Party has suffered as a result of there not being one vote, one value. For instance, in 1951, when the majority of the electorate voted for a Labour Government, a majority of Conservative Members was returned. At that time I did not hear stirring speeches or stories coming from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about our constitutional liberties being imperilled.
We have had no case put forward in support of the Amendment to ensure that postponement of the decision and the bringing of the Order in Council before Parliament would remedy that state of affairs. On those grounds, I am unable to support the Amendment.

Mr. Richard Sharpies: We have had a not unreasonable speech from the Home Secretary. The only thing that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends did not detect was any argument against accepting the Amendment.
The Amendment seeks to ensure that if the process of starting to re-examine parliamentary boundaries has not started by 1st May, 1972, that process shall then start. I should think that this was a perfectly reasonable proposition. The Committee will remember that even after the process has started—as we suggest, on 1st May, 1972—there will still be four years in which the Boundary Commission has to make its report. Therefore, if the Amendment is accepted, the earliest date by which the Commission's report would have to be laid before Parliament compulsorily by the Home Secretary would be 1st May, 1976. Surely this is not an unreasonable final date upon which we should have to reconsider the whole matter.
The Home Secretary's arguments, so far as they went, seemed to be twofold. First, that the date proposed in the Amendment might be too early. The right hon. Gentleman said that the local authorities set-up, as a result of the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Committee, might not be in existence and, therefore, it would not be possible for them to be consulteed by the Boundary Commission. The Home Secretary must have some idea of what the Gov-

ernment are proposing in their timetable for the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. We would consider it reasonable for the Government to put forward an alternative date—perhaps 1st May, 1973, or a later date in 1972—if the date that we have suggested is, for some reason which the Government know, not the right one.
The Home Secretary's second argument was that this process could be started earlier. But he neglected to point out that, under the Bill, the formal question of starting the process of redistribution of boundaries cannot take place until the Home Secretary of the day has laid an order. Section 1(2) states:
A Boundary Commission shall proceed forthwith to take into consideration the making of their said next report if Her Majesty so directs by Order in Council".
A Boundary Commission cannot start to take into consideration the making of its report until an Order in Council has been laid.
6.15 p.m.
I do not want to delay the Committee in coming to a decision. The Amendment provides a long-stop against any Government which might, for reasons of their own, seek indefinitely to delay the process of reconsideration of Parliamentary boundaries. We look upon the Amendment as a test of the good faith of the Government. I do not believe that we can leave to any Government an open-ended option to start the process of a review of boundaries at any date which they may see fit in future.
As the Bill stands, it is not compulsory for a Boundary Commission to lay its report or for the process of reconsideration of the boundaries to be completed until November, 1984. Surely this is a date which is quite intolerable both to the House and to the country. I hope that, as a result of the very cogent arguments which have been put forward by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, we shall have a further explanation from the Home Secretary.
In the absence of an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman which goes very much further than the assurance that we have already had, I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: When there is a Guillotine on, I feel that it is the Opposition's day, so to speak, and that they should have a fair proportion of the time. I do not wish to take long, but, as the hon. Gentleman invited me, I will say a few words more about the discussion that we have had.
Right hon. and hon. Members who heard me at the outset will realise that I entirely agree that 1984, or 1983, as it will be, as the next date for producing the Boundary Commission's proposals will be as intolerable to me as it would be to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples). In my view, it is unthinkable as a date.
My case against both the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, is that they have taken the extreme legal position and not had regard to what I think is the practical position. They were both answered by the right hon Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), although I do not accept his argument. But, if he should possibly be right, the case for writing in a fixed date, which it what we are discussing, is very much weakened. His argument was that it may be 1974 before the legislation arising out of local government reorganisation is passed. That means that we would probably not get the proposals for redistribution by 1977. That, I think, fairly summarises the two dates given by the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he is wrong. He is too pessimistic about it, for reasons which I can give later.
If the right hon. Gentleman is right, what would be the point of setting the Boundary Commission off on an uncharted voyage in 1972 when it would not have the local authorities set up or even in prospect, but would know that legislation was on its way. That would seem to be much worse than the existing position. That is why it is important and proper that we should not have a fixed date.

Mr. Noble: The Home Secretary has taken part of my argument, but he has not done what I asked him to do, which was to give his own timing. If the Boundary Commission started in 1972 it would be unlikely that the new local authority vesting date would be much

before 1975 or 1976, or even later. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to argue, will he give the facts?

Mr. Callaghan: I was coming to that, but I was clearing away the undergrowth before erecting the superstructure. It is fair to say that the conclusion from the right hon. Gentleman's argument, pessimistic though it is, would lead him to vote against the Amendment and for flexibility.

Sir D. Renton: The right hon. Gentle- man is missing the basic point of the Amendment. It is the essence of the timing of the matter. Whether there is to be a Redcliffe-Maud revision of local boundaries or not, are we to put up with the old boundary structure—already 15 years old—for more than yet one more General Election? Unless the right hon. Gentleman "comes clean" on that point we must assume that he is prepared for the old structure to go on indefinitely into the future. We are to have it next time anyway; we want to ensure that we do not have it the time after that, and possibly twice after that. It is to that point—irrespective of Redcliffe-Maud—that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will address his mind.

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot address my mind to the problem irrespective of Redcliffe-Maud. The Government take the view—as I believe any possible successor Government must take the view—that it is vitally necessary to reorganise local government boundaries and functions at an early date.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) said that he doubted whether any Government could introduce changes in local government. If he were right—I am sorry to see such pessimism in a young man—there would be small hope for the future of local government. Local government must be reorganised if it is to strive and thrive, to be efficient and representative. Therefore, I cannot dismiss from my mind the fact that it should take place. It is imperative that it should be done, and done early. In my view, it can be done earlier than the more pessimistic assumptions of hon. Members opposite.
When I heard the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) talk about the tremendous argument going on in the Midlands among local authority officers who


favoured Mr. Senior's proposals—the minority report—I reflected that there is much to commend those proposals. They are very attractive, but, with the Minister without Portfolio sitting beside me, I must be careful what I say.
The hon. Member must concede that no new differences are emerging and that no great new process will be taking place from now as to the way in which local government may be reorganised. The Government must take decisions after the process of negotiation. I cannot see how there can be any great further process of investigation and uncovering of new facts.
Therefore, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Meriden's conclusion that because there was fierce argument there would be no action. The investigation has taken place and it is now a question—after a considerable period of consultation—of reaching the appropriate conclusions. That is why I cannot dismiss Redcliffe-Maud from my caculations. I am firmly convinced—and it is the policy of this Government—that local government reorganisation should go ahead at an early date.
One other matter raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne I must take up. I will leave aside his gibes. He said that the 94 constituencies were an invention of mine and that informed observers could not find more than 20. In that case, which ones in my list does he not agree with? If he does not know what they are, he should, because I published them in HANSARD on 27th June, at col. 325. He will see that they start at Abingdon, work their way through Knutsford, and finish at Widnes. There are 94 in the list, which cross the proposed 58 unitary local government boundaries.
I gave the information in answer to a Question of his hon. Friend, who has just passed him the information. It is not good enough for him to say that these 94 constituencies are an invention of mine and that informed observers can detect only 20, when he now admits that he did not even know about the published list. Let hon. Members go through that list with a small-toothed comb and tell me which are inventions. It will be a useful exercise for him.
The plain truth is that not only are there 94 constituencies which will be affected directly by the local government reorganisation; at least that number will be affected at the second stage removed, because of the repercussive effect of these changes. We would have a major operation on our hands. That is my reason for not sending the Boundary Commission off on an uncharted voyage at a fixed date. We are saying that we should take the earliest date possible at which the map is becoming clear. That is what we want to do, and that is the assurance that I can give the Committee.
That is the reason for the words I used in my exchange with the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I am required to lay the Order as soon as it appears that there is no prospect of local government reorganisation. I do not have to wait until it is complete; I can get on with it and lay the Order once there is a prospect that local government reorganisation is going on.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that in previous redistributions there have been little movements of population. That is not true of South Wales. The growth of Cardiff and the hon. Member's own constituency in the latter part of the 19th century proves this. The hon. Member knows, as I do, that if this redistribution were to go through I should be handing to him an area that I am told he would find unwelcome. There is nothing personal about this.
On the time table, the position is that the first thing the Boundary Commission publishes are its provisional recommendations. These are arrived at without consultation. The Commission does not have to consult any body or wait until the last button is on the last gaiter of the last town clerk's trousers. It can get ahead and publish its provisional recommendations. Representations can be made on these provisional recommendations by local authorities and others, and it would be at that stage that we would have to ensure that local authorities came into play. I would want to lay an Order at such a stage, so that the Boundary Commission could go ahead on the preliminary work and produce its provisional recommendations at a time which would more or less coincide


with the moment that the local authorities would be in being.
They might even be shadow local authorities, because there were many shadow local authorities in London, before the final set-up was established. That would not make it impossible to do the job. It is not for me to give absolute guarantees today. I am not in a position to do so. If there are representations by a local authority or 100 or more electors there is an inquiry. The Commission can then decide whether to stick to its original recommendations or to published revised recommendations. This stage can be repeated, and then the Commission makes its final report.
On the timing, the Commission can get ahead as soon as the local government map becomes clearer—and the earlier in the lifetime of a Government the better. That can be got on with straight away.
I shall lay the Order in Council as soon as I think it reasonable—if I have responsibility for the matter. To those who say that they do not trust us I would point out that they are showing singularly little confidence in their

capacity to win the next election. Perhaps they are right in that. It is important that I should spell out that it is my intention to lay the Order in Council as soon as is reasonable. For the reasons that I have given it would be wrong to fix a certain date in the Bill for laying the Order—because it could be earlier or, if the pessimism of hon. Gentlemen opposite is justified, a little later.

I therefore hope that the Opposition will not press the Amendment. If they do, I must ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, has it escaped his notice that we have not had one of those instant promises from the Opposition that they would immediately implement their own date of 1972 for Boundary Commission recommendations if they should be returned? Is not this of some significance? Is it not a test of their sincerity that they have not given such a pledge?

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 291.

Division No. 320.]
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chataway, Christopher
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chichester-Clark, R.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Astor, John
Clark, Henry
Glyn, Sir Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gower, Raymond


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cordle, John
Grant, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Corfield, F. V.
Grieve, Percy


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Costain, A. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bell, Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gurden, Harold


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crouch, David
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Crowder, F. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Biffen, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dance, James
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Black, Sir Cyril
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Blaker, Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Body, Richard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hastings, Stephen


Bossom, Sir Clive
Doughty, Charles
Hawkins, Paul


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Drayson, G. B.
Hay, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Braine, Bernard
Eden, Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heseltine, Michael


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-u|pon Tyne, N)
Higgins, Terence L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Hiley, Joseph


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bryan, Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Farr, John
Holland, Philip


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Fisher, Nigel
Hordern, Peter


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, Richard


Burden, F. A.
Fortescue, Tim
Howell, David (Guildford)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Foster, Sir John
Hunt, John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Carlisle, Mark
Gibson-Watt, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)




Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)




Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharples, Richard


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Silvester, Frederick


Jopling, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Speed, Keith


Kershaw, Anthony
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith


Kimball, Marcus
Nott, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Onslow, Cranley
Stodart, Anthony


Kirk, Peter
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kitson, Timothy
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambton, Viscount
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Temple, John M.


Lawler, Wallace
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peel, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Tilney, John


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Longden, Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lubbock, Eric
Pounder, Rafton
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vickers, Dame Joan


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Prior, J. M. L.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Pym, Francis
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


McMaster, Stanley
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walters, Dennis


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maddan, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, A. W.


Marten, Neil
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Royle, Anthony
Wright, Esmond


Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, N. R.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Monro, Hector
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.



Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


More, Jasper
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.






NOES


Abse, Leo
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Albu, Austen
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edelman, Maurice


Alldritt, Walter
Cant, R. B.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Anderson, Donald
Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, John


Ashley, Jack
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
English, Michael


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Chapman, Donald
Ennals, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Concannon, J. D.
Ensor, David


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Barnes, Michael
Cronin, John
Faulds, Andrew


Barnett, Joel
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fernyhough, E.


Baxter, William
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Finch, Harold


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tam
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bence, Cyril
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islington,E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Binns, John
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foley, Maurice


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ford, Ben


Booth, Albert
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Forrester, John


Boston, Terence
Delargy, Hugh
Fowler, Gerry


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dell, Edmund
Freeson, Reginald


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bradley, Tom
Dewar, Donald
Gardner, Tony


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Ginsburg, David


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dobson, Ray
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Doig, Peter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Driberg, Tom
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunn, James A.
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)







Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackle, John
Richard, Ivor


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamling, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Hannan, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roebuck, Roy


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hattersley, Roy
Manuel, Archie
Ryan, John


Hazell, Bert
Mapp, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Henig, Stanley
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hilton, W. S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hooley, Frank
Maxwell, Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Juilus


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mendelson, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mikardo, Ian
Slater, Joseph


Howie, W.
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Snow, Julian


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Moonman, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hynd, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wytheushawe)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Symonds, J. B.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Taverne, Dick


Jeger, Georgo (Goole)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Murray, Albert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Neal, Harold
Thornton, Ernest


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Newens, Stan
Tinn, James


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oram, Albert E.
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Wallace, George


Kenyon, Clifford
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Weitzman, David


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Park, Trevor
Whitlock, William


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lee, John (Reading)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lipton, Marcus
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Loughlin, Charles
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Winnick, David


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McBride, Neil
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


McCann, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Wyatt, Woodrow


MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur



Macdonald, A. H.
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McGuire, Michael
Rankin, John
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rees, Merlyn



Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 2, line 18, at end insert:

(4) The Secretary of State shall, at least once in each calendar year, consult the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of each Boundary Commission as to the desirability of making an

Order in Council under subsection (2) above in respect of their area.—[Mr. Hogg.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 285.

Division No. 321.]
AYES
[6.42 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Astor, John
Batsford, Brian
Biffen, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Biggs-Davison, John


Awdry, Daniel
Bell, Ronald
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel




Black, Sir Cyril
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Body, Richard
Hay, John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Percival, Ian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heseltine, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Braine, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Bryan, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridsdale, Julian


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Robson Brown, Sir William


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Royle, Anthony


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cordle, John
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Crowder, F. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Silvester, Frederick


Currie, G. B. H.
Lane, David
Sinclair, Sir Ceorge


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lawler, Wallace
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stainton, Keith


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lubbock, Eric
Stodart, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Temple, John M.


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eyre, Reginald
Maddan, Martin
Tilney, John


Farr, John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fortescue, Tim
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Waddington, David


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Glyn, Sir Richard
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
More, Jasper
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wiggin, A. W.


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Woodnutt, Mark


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wright, Esmond


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wylie, N. R.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John
Younger, Hn. George


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Onslow, Cranley



Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Hector Monro and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborn, John (Hallam)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)


Albu, Austen
Archer, Peter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ashley, Jack
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice


Alldritt, Walter
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.







Barnes, Michael
Galpern, Sir Myer
Maxwell, Robert


Barnett, Joel
Gardner, Tony
Mayhew, Christopher


Baxter, William
Cinsburg, David
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Beaney, Alan
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, John


Bence, Cyril
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mikardo, Ian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Binns, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moonman, Eric


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boston, Terence
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Boyden, James
Hannan, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Neal, Harold


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Haseldine, Norman
Newens, Stan


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hazell, Bert
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Henig, Stanley
O'Malley, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, w. S.
Oram, Albert E.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Carmichael, Neil
Howie, W.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Palmer, Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, Trevor


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Conlan, Bernard
Hynd, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pentland, Norman


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on Hull, W.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Delargy, Hugh
Kenyon, Clifford
Richard, Ivor


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dobson, Ray
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roebuck, Roy


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John (Reading)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ryan, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Edelman, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


English, Michael
McCall, John
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, David
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Snow, Julian


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, E.
Mackle, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Finch, Harold
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, Rt, Hn. John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Symonds, J. B.


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, Archie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Ford, Ben
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Fowler, Gerry
Marquand, David
Tomney, Frank


Freeson, Reginald
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Tuck, Raphael



Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy








Urwin, T. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Varley, Eric G.
Whitlock, William
Winnick, David


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woof, Robert


Wallace, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)



Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Weitzman, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Ernest Armtrong and Mr, Joseph Harper.


Wellbeloved, James
Willis, Rt. Hn. George

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair.]

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'may at any time 'and insert shall'.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the following Amendments: No. 8, in line 20, leave out 'March 1970 ' and insert' October 1969'.
No. 10, in line 25, leave out 'or ' and insert' and'.
No. 11, in line 25, after 'Ireland', insert ' and for Wales'.
No. 12, in line 32, after 'Ireland', insert ' or for Wales'.

Mr. Campbell: This group of Amendments does not deal at all with England and is, therefore, in no way connected with the Redcliffe-Maud Report. Hon. Members representing English constituencies will, nevertheless, be concerned at what the Government are proposing for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, three parts of the United Kingdom which were not within the remit of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission and were not touched on in its report.
My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in England have rightly been condemning the Government for "Callamandering" in England because of the go ahead being given in London and some selective tinkering in, for example, the County of Essex, despite the parallel with Essex County of Massachusetts and the salamander.
The feeble pretext offered has been the Redcliffe-Maud Report, but even this unprincipled excuse cannot be offered in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because the Redcliffe-Maud Commission did not consider them and its report does not apply to them in any particular whatever. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each has a separate Boundary Commission and each of these

has reported this year, as required. The up-to-date fruits of the labours of these independent bodies are available to the country now, as intended under our system by the 1949 legislation.
In addition, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each has separate equivalents to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission. Two of their reports are available, and one still has yet to be presented. Wales was not included in the Redcliffe-Maud Commission's remit. Instead, however, the Government put forward proposals two years ago, almost to the day—in July, 1967—and these have even been debated in Parliament.
The reorganisation that was proposed for Wales, together with the administration of the Welsh Office, appears to be consistent with the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. Indeed, they could operate side by side. No over-riding new factor has been introduced for Wales. The point of compelling importance is that the Welsh Boundary Commission's proposals are not inconsistent with the recommendations in the White Paper of two years ago.
If reorganisation on the lines of the Government's two-year old proposals were carried out, and the Welsh Boundary Commission's recommendations were also carried out, the effect would be to rationalise Welsh constituencies and bring the Welsh boundaries, including local government boundaries, more into conformity. For Wales the situation could not be clearer. The Welsh Boundary Commission's Report should be implemented immediately. However, the Government propose to postpone any action on the Welsh Boundary Commission's Report for several years, in the same way as they propose to act for England.
The Government have adduced the Redcliffe-Maud Report as a pretext for their ignominious behaviour in upsetting the constitutional arrangements for England. What excuse have the Government for their chicanery over Wales? The Government's proposals for local government


published two years ago are not in conflict with the Welsh Boundary Commission's recommendations and the only reason we can conclude for their action is that the Labour Party would lose one or two seats in Wales. In other words, simply for one or two seats the Government are prepared to go to such lengths of constitutional impropriety. How, therefore, can we trust Ministers to take sensible decisions in other cases?
This brings me to Scotland, where there is a separate Royal Commission, the Wheatley Commission, which has not yet reported. In respect of Northern Ireland, a White Paper was published two weeks ago putting forward proposals for local government reorganisation. Under subsection (4), which we seek to amend, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland would have discretion to decide before the end of March, 1970, whether or not to put into effect the two Boundary Commissions' recommendations.
There is an overwhelming objection to this course. It is that nobody can any longer trust either of these two Ministers, not least because of the action which they are proposing for Wales. Under subsection (4), no reasons are even given for the decisions being left to the Ministers. The Wheatley report is not even mentioned, although we understand from what these Ministers have said that the Wheatley report is likely to reach the Government before March, 1970. However, neither that report nor the White Paper for Ulster is mentioned. Indeed, no considerations or criteria are hinted at in subsection (4) which would influence the two Ministers in taking their decision.
It is left to these Ministers, for any reason, to decide to postpone the implementation of these recommendations; and, of course, some alleged new development could be called in aid by the Government between now and March. They have demonstrated that they can trump up a bogus reason at the drop of a hat. This subsection would give them a blank cheque to enable the Government to go in for a new kind of business, what might be called "Rent-a-seat".
If the Government deliberately stop the recommendations of these independent Boundary Commissions from being put

into effect, the result will be that probably after the next two elections—all observers are agreed on this—a number of Labour hon. Members will be sitting by kind permission of the present Government and not as a result of the constitutional system involving our independent Boundary Commissions.
7.0 p.m.
Scotland is in a special position, as you know, Mr. Gourlay, because there have to be precisely 71 seats and problems of distance, communications and scattered populations arise in some areas. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary was dangerously off the mark when he referred in derogatory terms to a constituency in the north of Scotland with an electorate of 35,000, because in Scotland there has to be a lower average electorate in order to preserve the 71 seats.
This arises from the total population of Scotland as compared with the total population of the rest of the country. The Government have not helped by reducing the number of jobs in Scotland by 35,000 in the last four years and there has been considerable emigration over those four years.

Mr. W. Howie: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the population of Scotland is going up or down?

Mr. Campbell: There is a slight increase, but it is very much less than the increase in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Scottish Boundary Commission has had a special task, quite separate from that of the other Commissions, for it has had to recommend the redistribution of 71 seats. With the population of Scotland increasing very slightly, as it is, and the population of the rest of the United Kingdom increasing much faster —and the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), as a Scot, will be familiar with this situation—the average electorate in Scotland is smaller than the average in England. But this has been one of the problems which the Scottish Commission has taken into account, with all the other factors, in trying to arrive at fair recommendations in accordance with the 1949 Act.

Mr. Howie: rose—

Mr. Campbell: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I shall probably answer the question that he has in mind as I go on.
I was about to ask whether the Government proposed to reduce the 71 Scottish seats. Have they any plans for reducing that number, and so changing the situation? That would be yet another constitutional change which, I hope, the Government will not propose arbitrarily to steamroller through by the payroll vote. Instead of sniping at the size of a Scottish constituency 600 miles north of London, a constituency which the Boundary Commission considers appropriate, the Government should concentrate on putting into effect the Commission's recommendations which are now before the Government and which are up to date.

Mr. Gower: Is not the size of electorates in parts of Northern Scotland, as in North Wales, a recognition of the fact that the populations are largely dispersed and that communications are extremely difficult?

Mr. Campbell: I referred to that. I do not want to detain the Committee with examples.
However, the Scottish Commission considered whether Skye should be attached to the Western Isles, which is a constituency represented by a Labour Member, on the ground that the Western Isles electorate is very small. But after going into the matter—and the problems are all set out in the report—the Commission decided that, because of the difficulty of sea communications, and because of Skye's orientation towards the mainland, the two should not be grouped together. This is the kind of problem which has to be taken into account by the Scottish Commission under the 1949 Act.
The Minister without Portfolio is reported in the Press as having said over the weekend:
What synthetic self-righteousness from a party that took power in 1951 on a minority vote and who have had more seats than share of the votes in 12 out of 14 general elections because of the permanent built-in bias of our electoral system in favour of Tory-dominated rural areas".
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that, on reflection, he will agree that those remarks were

based on a fallacy. Whether a party is returned on a minority vote depends mainly on another factor. It could happen even if all the constituencies were exactly equal in size. If the losing party lost the seats it lost by small majorities and won the seats it won by large majorities, the winning party could be elected on a minority vote.
That is always possible in our system of electing a single Member for each constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) knows only too well, three votes can be just as good as 30,000 in winning a seat—"One is enough". That is what governs whether a party wins a majority of constituencies without having a majority of the total votes cast.
The right hon. Gentleman apparently referred to
the permanent built-in bias of our electoral system in favour of Tory-dominated rural areas".
Does that mean that the Government are rejecting the proposals of the four Boundary Commissions on the basis that they are biased in favour of rural areas and the Conservatives? That is the logical conclusion of that sinister remark. The right hon. Gentleman has moved into this sphere from foreign affairs and Rhodesia which, I think, he was personally handling well. I am sorry that he has allowed himself, in this new field, to say things like this, which I believe to have been included in a brief put into his hand, for he would not have said them if he had thought them out.
Apparently, the Government intend to postpone implementation of the recommendations for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. They have given themselves until March, 1970, to take a decision for Scotland and Northern Ireland and it looks as though they will take a bogus decision. Our Amendments would restore the obligation upon Ministers to lay Orders, as they are required, by October, of this year, for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the same thing would be done for Wales by two of our Amendments. Where the position would not be left, as the Bill proposes, to be dealt with in the same way as the English position.
The Redcliffe-Maud Commission had no application to Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. It did not consider


those parts of the United Kingdom. The Government's devious and discreditable proposals for those parts of the United Kingdom will be roundly condemned as inexcusable if they proceed with them.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) said that he was dealing with all the subjects affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not comment in detail on his remarks about Scotland or Northern Ireland. I would prefer to confine my remarks to Wales, although there are some preliminary comments I would like to make upon what he has said. I was not quite clear from his remarks whether he now accepts or discards the principle, and I think that we can call it such, that if possible Parliamentary boundaries should be settled in co-ordination with local government boundaries.
I am not quite sure whether the Opposition accept that idea. It is an important principle which has a great bearing on the operation of our democracy, whether north of the Border, in Wales or anywhere else, and it is a principle which we must take into account along with the desirability of making constituencies, so far as possible, mathematically fairly equal. As far as I could understand the Opposition's case previously, although there may have been some departure from it in the hon. Gentleman's speech, they have rejected altogether any consideration of the idea of co-ordinating parliamentary with local government boundaries.
If they take that view they are in some difficulty when they apply it to different parts of the United Kingdom, because there is a different situation in different parts of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Gentleman was forced to acknowledge in his remarks.

Mr. Hogg: It is entirely incorrect to say that the Opposition do not take account of this principle. The principle is enshrined in the Schedule to the 1949 Act and has been taken into account by the Boundary Commission's Report, which we wish to implement.

Mr. Foot: We are making considerable progress with that intervention, because the right hon. and learned Gentle-

man has now, I am glad to see, accorded to me acceptance of the idea, which he says he intended before, and which is intended in the recommendations, but which has not been extremely explicit in the remarks of hon. Gentlemen previously, that local government boundaries must be taken into account—of course we must seek to co-ordinate these measures as far as possible. He says that the Boundary Commission was instructed to do exactly this. The Commission could not take account of the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations precisely because they were not before them. The Opposition are moving forward considerably. It just shows the advantage of these lengthy debates.
Any Government seeking to carry out the principle, now acknowledged on the opposite side of the Committee, of trying, if possible, to co-ordinate the settlement of parliamentary with local government boundaries, is faced with the difficulty that the position about the recommendations for local government boundary changes are so different in each of the four countries. In Wales, we have had a local government commission which has reported, in Scotland we are still awaiting the Commission and in England we had the report a few weeks ago.
The Government were in considerable difficulty about this. I can see, from the point of view of the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, why he should seek to make this case. If the Government had conceded what he had asked they would have been extremely inconsistent and the Opposition would have been able to use the concession made by the Government over Wales and Scotland to attack the Government for inconsistency in England. This is, no doubt, why the Government made a consistent decision and said that what they must seek to do is to coordinate the settlement of Parliamentary and local government boundaries at the same time, as far as possible. The Government have said that they will of course agree to the Boundary Commission's report where the whole question of boundaries has been settled—that is London.
The Government agree to that, although that is supposed to be part of the fiddle. I make the rather mischievous suggestion that if it is part of the


"fiddle" we may withdraw the proposition. If we were to do that when the Bill reaches another place the alert Members, or the more alert Members, in that place might detect a fallacy. They may say that we cannot argue that we have to hold up these Boundary Commission reports because of local government decisions, since here in London where we have the decision we are not implementing it.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Would my hon. Friend agree that the only "fiddle" we can see in London is the prospective flight of the Leader of the Opposition from his Bexley seat to either Sidcup or Westminster?

Mr. Foot: That is a perfectly proper intervention. We have had to hear ad nauseam allegations about our misdeeds. The Opposition are very thin-skinned when we try to track the future path of the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that he continues with his Bacchannals in Bexley. Leave him there; we can deal with him.
I hope that the Opposition have now conceded that it is desirable, if possible, to co-ordinate the settlement of local government and Parliamentary boundaries. Any Government seeking to apply that principle is in great difficulties because of the different time schedules affecting different parts of the United Kingdom. The Government had to look at the Measure and say, "We must try to apply this consistently to the whole of the United Kingdom." That is exactly what they have done for Wales. The hon. Gentleman says that in Wales, Redcliffe-Maud has no effect. He says that it does not affect Welsh boundaries at all.
7.15 p.m.
The claim is completely false. It has always been known, unfortunately in some respects, from the point of view of those of us in Wales who wish to see local government boundaries settled as speedily as possible, that when the proposals for the United Kingdom came forward, if they contained certain propositions such as proposals for different forms of regional government and elected councils, then they were bound to affect, in some degree, the proposals made for Wales. Everyone has known that, the Welsh Office has known it, every Welsh M.P. has known it.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: If this is so, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the party opposite thought it right to bring their recommendations forward in a White Paper two years ago? Have they been wasting the time not only of this House but of the Welsh local authorities in this vain endeavour?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He was present at some of these discussions and should have followed the matter more closely. The Government accepted that there should be the report of the Commission about Welsh local government before the report of the Commission for England. It was always assumed by everyone who knew anything about the situation that some of the decisions about England might affect Wales. That is the position now. I want to see the decisions about the local government boundaries in Wales made as speedily as possible, and I want the reform of Welsh local government to go ahead as speedily as possible.
I am not arguing that it has to take the same form as the reforms in England. It would be an absurdity for anyone to suggest that the proposals in Wales can be carried out entirely irrespective of what is happening in England. That would be a most extraordinary administrative shambles, and if any Government were to do it they would be pilloried for having done so. What the Government are doing, perfectly sensibly, is saying that just as it is sensible to try to co-ordinate decisions about the timing of Parliamentary and local government boundaries in England, so the same thing must prevail in Wales.
There is no "fiddle" about that. It is a straightforward, simple proposition which could be understood by anyone. It means that the position would be the same in England, Scotland and Wales—as soon as possible—because the Government are much more eager to go ahead with this than the Opposition; they are talking of the distant future. The Government, particularly through the speech of the Home Secretary, have shown that they desire to proceed with the matter speedily and to settle it so that we can get new local government and Parliamentary boundaries.
This must be done in a co-ordinated way, which does not mean that we have to slice Parliamentary boundaries again


in a few years' time. It is an extraordinary proposition put forward by the Conservatives who are supposed to be a believer in organic government—they are supposed to inherit the mantle of Edmund Burke. Now they want to slice constituencies every 12 months, as if they are bladders of lard. They think that we can lop a little off here and lop a little off there, shunt a ward that way and shunt a ward that way, and change it all every two or three years.
They talk as though that has no bearing on the operation of democracy in this country. Of course it has. Every Member of Parliament knows, even if many newspapers are so ignorant of our affairs that they do not appreciate it, that the association between a Member of Parliament and his geographical constituency is very important. It is a great contribution to the welfare of democracy that many hon. Members represent the same geographical area for most of their political lives. If that situation can be preserved, it is a very good thing to preserve it.
It may be difficult for my right hon. Friend to say this, because he is a very respectful fellow and tries to treat the Commission as respectfully as he can and with his natural courtesy, but I can say it: I have no great faith in the Boundary Commission. I have seen the way in which it has hacked constituencies about time after time. Partly it does it because it has very little understanding of how democracy operates. The Conservative Party at one time set great store on the association between a Member of Parliament and his constituency, between him and the soil from which he was sent, the area which he represented, the association of long standing between him and his own area. It is strange that it should now treat these matters as if they are trivial and of no importance.
Indeed, they have to be weighed against other factors. I do not say that this factor must prevail against all others. There has to be a balance between these factors and that has always been my case for the House of Commons deciding these matters. The Boundary Commission can make such recommendations as it likes, but the House of Commons must draw the proper balance between these matters. That is what we insist and that is why it would be outrageous if in another place there were an attempt to interfere

with the House of Commons in the discharge of its proper constitutional duty of drawing the proper balance between the requirements of mathematical equality and the requirements of retaining the association between a Member of Parliament and his geographical constituency.

Mr. Gower: Does the hon. Member appreciate—I am sure he must—that we are dealing with a subject matter of such a nature that the House of Commons which, after all, is only a collection of politicians, has a special duty? In this delicate matter does he believe that the House of Commons is always able to achieve that objective judgment which is necessary? Is it not better to pay special attention to the recommendations of independent Commissions?

Mr. Foot: Proper regard should be paid to the recommendations of independent Commissions. But I have argued throughout the Bill that the recommendations of the independent Commission are certainly not binding upon the House of Commons and that the House has a right to pass a balanced judgment on what is proposed, partly on account of the question of the particular areas and partly to ensure that the recommendations of the Boundary Commission are not pressed through according to some timetable fixed four or five years ago when present-day information was not available to the House.
That is the argument which we and the Government are putting. Perfectly reputably and honourably, they have put the argument that the House of Commons must take into account the new circumstances affecting local government and the new situation. What is proposed will perhaps be the biggest change in local government for about 100 years. For hon. Members opposite to argue that on the very eve of a change of such a revolutionary nature there should be a major change in Parliamentary boundaries is a most extraordinary proposition to be presented, particularly by those who are supposed to have regard for the traditions of the country.
The Opposition have put themselves in an entirely absurd position, and nobody illustrated that better than did the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) in his interruption. I understand that one of


their complaints is that they have not sufficient time to debate these matters in the House. But if they had had their way, we should not have debated them at all. If the Opposition had had their way we should have said to the independent Commission, "We will accept every word you say. It is the law of the land. We must not even debate it."

Mr. Gower: Nonsense.

Mr. Foot: But that is exactly what hon Members opposite have been saying. They say that if we interfere with the recommendations of an independent Commission, we shall be accused of gerrymandering and shall hear all the other accusations which are being made. I do not think that Members of another place have any right to determine matters affecting this House, and it would be an extremely serious state of affairs if they tried to do so.
Some in another place claim to represent landed interests and different regions of the country and to speak with the voice of those who bring great traditions from every part of the country. If they throw out the Bill they will be rejecting proposals which precisely take account of those traditions and which seek to ensure that the local government Measures which the Government are to introduce will be started on a reasonable basis and that there shall be an intelligent co-ordination between the proposed Parliamentary boundaries and the proposed local government boundaries.
I hope that all this will be taken into account when the Committee considers the Amendments. I can see no other way which the Government could have followed to ensure that Wales, Scotland and England were treated fairly and in the same way. It has been suggested that this proposal to suspend the operation of the Welsh Boundary Commission Report will work in favour of the Labour Party. These suggestions have been made. I do not know whether they are true. Not a single piece of evidence has been produced to support them. I invite Welsh hon. Members to produce the evidence. We know that The Times, the Daily Telegraph and most of the rest of the Press have made up their minds

to scream these headlines, but they have never produced a scrap of evidence, for the very obvious reason that they cannot produce it.
There is a difficulty in Wales. There are so few Conservative Members for Wales—indeed, so few other than Labour Members—that whatever adjustment is made might be interpreted in certain circumstances as favourable to the other parties, because if there is 100 per cent. Labour Party representation the position can hardly be made any better. In fact, it is not 100 per cent. but that does not invalidate the argument.
I well remember when the Welsh Boundary Commission's Report was published. Perhaps I remember it better than does the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn—and I do not blame him for not having followed it very closely. When that report was published, I do not recall any commentator suggesting that it was either highly favourable to the Labour Party or highly unfavourable to the Labour Party. Nobody said, "The Labour Party are unlikely to implement this Report because it is unfavourable to them". In fact, quite a number of my hon. Friends in Wales were relieved when they read the report; they felt that it was not at all what some people had suggested.
Thus, it cannot be argued now that in some way or another the suspension of that report is a "fiddle", bearing in mind that when the report was published no opinions one way or the other were expressed about its political consequences. The hon. Member for Barry will concur in that view. Indeed, I see that he does concur in it. He agrees that it was a neutral report. Yet the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn says that failure to implement it is a monstrous part of the gerrymandering and a part of a "fiddle". But his hon. Friend the Member for Barry, who knows better, agrees that the report is quite neutral. I do not know how well the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn can speak for Scotland, but I dare say that his verdict about the situation in Scotland is as jaundiced, biased and misleading as were his comments about Wales, according to the evidence of his hon. Friend the Member for Barry.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Gower: Does the hon. Member appreciate that my hon. Friend and I were in agreement that the Report of the Boundary Commission was a fair one? My hon. Friend made a valid case, however, in saying that failure to implement it is something different.

Mr. Foot: That was not quite what the argument was about. I will not follow it all through again, because we would only come to the same point.
If it was the case that the Boundary Commission's Report for Wales was so unfavourable to the Labour Party as the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn suggested, it might have been a matter for comment in Wales when it was published. All I am saying is that it was not so.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I will repeat my words. I was asking what reason the Government could have had for postponing the implementation of the Welsh Boundary Commission Report. The only reason I could suggest was that the Government would probably lose a seat or two.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member is now roaring as gently as a sucking dove. A few minutes ago, we were told that it was a terrible gerrymander. Now, it is a marginal question of one or two seats. The hon. Member had better confine himself to Scotland and not intrude into the Principality on these matters. It would be much safer for him not to do so.
The debate on this subject is a further illustration of my main argument about this matter. Whatever may be the position of the Government in these Boundary Commission questions, I am absolutely opposed to the idea that the House of Commons should surrender the final word about what changes are to be made in boundaries, and when they are to be made, to any independent Commission, to any outside body and, most of all, to that outside body the other place, which has no right whatever to interfere in these matters.
I believe that as the argument becomes understood, it will be appreciated that what the Government are proposing is fair and reasonable and done in the best interests of local and Parliamentary government.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) accused us on this side of being thin-skinned. That is certainly not the accusation which I would make against him. He is being more thick-skinned in these debates than I have ever known. He is intelligent enough to know that this is a dishonourable racket. The other day the hon. Member quoted Sir Kenneth Pickthorn in his support. Sir Kenneth Pickthorn is a man of the utmost honour and what he would have said about the speech to which we have just listened had he been here to hear it the hon. Member is bright enough to know.
I want to confine myself to the Welsh question. This is the acid test. The only excuse put up by the Government for not implementing the Boundary Commission's Report is the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the coming Scottish Report. As we all know, neither of these applies in any way to Wales. The question of Welsh boundaries has been considered by all Governments for many years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) said, the Government produced their own proposals two years ago. They have been round to no fewer than 50 meetings of local authorities. They have modified their proposals slightly, and now they have got agreement, as far as they are ever likely to get agreement on such proposals.
There is no proposal put forward by the Secretary of State for Wales to alter the Government's present boundary proposals. If we were to alter the boundaries in Wales in accordance with the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, there would certainly have to be another Royal Commission because it would take a very long time to hash it out in a different way. Therefore, any boundary changes in Wales would be postponed for many years. There is, however, no proposal to have a Royal Commission for Wales. As far as I know, there is no proposal to alter these boundaries. In fact, the proposals of the Boundary Commissioners are not in any way affected by the changes proposed by the Government. They fit in perfectly well.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was ridiculous in arguing whether the proposals were favourable or unfavourable


to the Government. The point is that they are the findings of an impartial commission which the Government are under statutory obligation to bring in. The argument is not whether they are favourable or unfavourable. The reason why they have not been brought in was that they were unfavourable, I do not doubt; but to argue that is very dangerous from the hon. Member's point of view.
Wales did not blow up as a result of the proposed changes, because they are very small in number. No one got very excited about them because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn said, the effect would not be very great. The effect in honour, however, is very great. The Radcliffe-Maud argument does not apply in any way whatever to Wales and it is unlikely to do so. Therefore, it is shot away. This is a straight bit of corruption. No one can doubt it.
I do not know what another place will do, but if it throws out the Bill it may be that the Home Secretary will go to gaol. He might well be willing to go to gaol. He might think that he would pick up a few tips from the inmates which would be useful to him in his Parliamentary career.
What a disaster the Home Secretary has been, the worst Chancellor ever known. The Financial Secretary, in the first true remark made by a Minister in the present Government since they got into office, said that we cannot possibly repay all the debts chalked up by the right hon. Gentleman. Now, he is lowering the currency of Parliamentary life. The man is a vain bonehead, and the sooner he is in gaol, the better.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I do not intend to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) either in loquacity or in the offensive nature of his remarks. The only difference between his speech and the speech in support of the Amendment was in the offensive nature of the language. There was no substance in the case made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) when he moved the Amendment.
I do not know the position in England and Wales or in London. It is quite impossible for any Scottish Member to

try to apply himself to the Scottish position and know in detail the boundaries of Greater London or some of the detailed proposals that every constituency raises. That is what we are discussing.
When it comes to Scotland, however, whatever synthetic indignation hon. Members opposite might be able to generate on England arising from the Redcliffe-Maud Report, I fail to understand their Amendments, because anybody who knows anything about the situation in Scotland—I am fairminded enough to suggest that that would include the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn in his calmer and more sober moments—must recognise that the Wheatley Report must have a tremendous impact on local government structure and boundaries and, consequently, on political or constituency boundaries.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn knows no more about it than I do—at least, I do not think he has any inside information. I would like to think that the Wheatley Report will be an imaginative document which will look at some of the problems of local government. One of those problems is the question of town and country. Glasgow is surrounded by suburbs which should be part of Glasgow. I am talking not in terms of a power structure but in physical terms of being linked with parts of the city because they have some connection.
I do not want to be parochial, but everybody knows that there are huge areas of green belt around the city under the control of some other authority which has not the slightest interest in developing them for the people who should be using them; namely, the people from the urban areas. It is a problem in any urban area, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience in the Scottish Office, would have been the last person to move such a tawdry Amendment, when he knows the relevance of the local government proposals still to come.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Member will know that it is because that report has not yet appeared and because it will be the start of a long debate on the whole question of the future reorganisation of local government that the Minister of State said in the Scottish Committee that it could be as much as 10


years before that report would be put into effect. That is far too long to wait for the boundary proposals.

Mr. Brown: All I can say is that in Glasgow—and this is not a party point—it is about 15 years since the corporation started looking at the possible re-drawing of ward boundaries, and it has still not reached any conclusion. The imbalance between a ward of over 40,000 and a ward of 10,000 has been in existence for 15 years. I would not have thought it could have been argued from that that some ward councillors work harder than others, and the same applies to Members of Parliament. The value of the work of a Member of Parliament is not determined by the number of electors he represents. There are other factors and qualities which come into the question of deciding whether a Member is a good Member and gives adequate service to his electorate.
As I say, the case for these Amendments has not been made out, in my opinion, by the Opposition. I must observe that there was no attempt to suggest gerrymandering in Scotland. Why not? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has not spoken yet; he will probably be able to attempt such a case in the way which is his normal practice; but I am talking about Front Bench spokesmen who, presumably, speak with some authority. It may be that the hon. Member for Cathcart is trying to lead the Conservative Party, but officially he does not do so on this issue.
There is in Scotland no political party which has suggested that any party has a gain or a loss because of the Boundary Commission's Report. Is the hon. Member suggesting that he thinks there is a fiddle in Scotland? He knows perfectly well that there is not, and that the approach which has been taken is a practical approach, and there is no question of political advantage to be gained one way or another. I do not know what is happening in the rest of the country, but it is insulting to Scotland for any Scottish hon. Member to kid other Members here who know nothing about Scotland and attempt to leave the impression upon thme that there is some political chicanery going on. Such an attempt is quite irresponsible, and the hon. Member goes down in my opinion when he makes any

suggestion of this kind, when he knows perfectly well that in Scotland there is nothing like this.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: How many years have we to wait?

Mr. Brown: I do not care how many years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.") Well, we have had to wait twenty years for a report on local government reorganisation, and everybody recognises that there must be substantial changes in local government in Scotland. What about Moray and Nairn? What about Banff? I see the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) here. Is he suggesting that there is going to be no need for changes in local government which would affect his constituency? What about Glasgow? Also, for example, what about Kinlochleven? For the benefit of the unenlightened, in Kinlochleven there is a small community—I think the population is 2,000 or 3,000—and the boundary of two counties goes through the middle of it; on one side Inverness-shire, and on the other side Argyllshire. No one is going to tell me that the Royal Commission is not going to report on that one, and that that will have no effect on constituency boundaries. I could go on giving dozens of examples.
I do not think the case has been made out by the Opposition. There is, to take the phrase the hon. Member has used, a good case for waiting for Wheatley. There is no case to be argued that this is a fiddle and will give political advantage to any of the parties in Scotland. For these reasons I genuinely think that we should fling out the Amendments.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), I shall confine myself entirely to Scotland. I do not propose to embark on a long discussion as to the effects of postponing the Boundary Commission's proposals in Scotland. I intend to confine myself entirely to the question of the Bill, because I think that there is here a matter of principle. As one who, as you, Mr. Gourlay, very well know, has a majority of 44, all I can say is that one never knows what the outcome may be of politics these days; and I would be the last to suggest what the effect of withholding boundary changes in my own


case would be. I shall take up no time on the question of the effects in political terms of withholding or implementing the Commission's proposals in Scotland.
However, as has been said many times in this debate, there is a question of principle which arises here, and I must say that I felt shocked the other day when I heard the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) suggesting that there was something wrong about leaving the matter of constituency boundaries to an independent body. It seems to me that, in this highly charged field, it is better, from everyone's point of view, that it should be taken out of the field of party politics, and that these decisions ought to be taken by independent bodies.
The immediate effect of the Clause as it stands, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has already recognised, is to legalise an illegality. It covers the illegality which, in my opinion, he has already committed. I think that he realised that when he said, in the Second Reading debate:
The Bill gives us the right to defer any decision about the Boundary Commission's Report until March of next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1969; Vol. 785, c. 535.]
But for this legislative provision which he seeks to enact he will have no right to defer any such decision. Indeed, in my respectful submission, he is in breach of his statutory obligation at the moment. I agree with him that he is correct when he says that the Bill is necessary to rectify his legal position.
I remind the Committee that I am confining myself to the Scottish aspect of this matter. During his remarks the Secretary of State for Scotland accused us —that is, the Scottish Conservative Members—of being inconsistent in our argument, because, he said, on other occasions we had argued that it was better to await the implementation of local government proposals and not act in advance, as he specially mentioned, of the Wheatley Commission, the Royal Commission on Local Government. Of course, even if that was correct, it seems to me to beg a very large question, whether there is really any comparison between the Social Work (Scotland) Act and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, to both of which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and the present

proposals or the present issue. It seems to me that they are not really comparable at all.
I should like, for the sake of the record, just to correct what the right hon. Gentleman said, because it was never our argument on this side that the Town and Country planning Bill, for example, should be withheld till the Royal Commission on Local Government has reported. On 2nd July, the Secretary of State said about us:
On the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, just the other week, what did they tell me? 'Do not do it.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1969; Vol. 785, c. 533.]
I want to make it perfectly clear that at no time did we suggest that. Indeed, on Third Reading of that Bill I said, and it is apposite to the argument here:
We have never argued that this Bill should be delayed until the Royal Commission on Local Government has reported. We cannot wait for this legislation until the Royal Commission's report is implemented, because that may take many years. This has to come now, in advance of those proceedings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1969; Vol. 784, c. 1628.]
It is we who have been consistent all along, and the right hon. Gentleman who has been inconsistent. Having pressed forward a great variety of legislation in advance of the Royal Commission's findings on local government, why is he so coy about implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission in this instance in advance of the report on local government?
The Clause is a transparent cover for what I can describe only as a rather disgraceful attitude towards the Boundary Commission in Scotland. The argument has been: what is the point of implementing the Boundary Commission's recommendations when we are on the eve of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government?
We have had a Royal Commission on Local Government sitting for years and the Secretary of State has permitted the Boundary Commission to work conscientiously and hard during a long period of years in the knowledge—and I say this with regret—that the Secretary of State for Scotland has no intention of paying the slightest regard to the Boundary Commission's recommendations when the Wheatley Commission Report comes forward. This subsection is nothing more than a cover. I do not


believe that the Royal Commission's recommendation will make the slightest difference to the Government's intentions for implementing the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.
If that is their attitude, would not it have been more honourable to have said to the Royal Commission, years ago. "We have appointed Royal Commissions which will clearly recommend radical changes in local government; it would be inconsistent to entertain these local government changes and at the same time implement the Boundary Commission's recommendations"—yet, of necessity, as the hon. Member for Provan pointed out, wholly unaware of what the Royal Commission's recommendations would be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said last week that there is a mood of cynicism abroad in the country, that there is a cynical attitude in the United Kingdom towards Parliament, politicians and our institutions of government. In Scotland, we must be particularly careful. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that we have our own special problems in Scotland, and I for one do not underrate the political significance of the party represented by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). I am sorry that she is not in her place tonight, but that is not a matter for me. Whether or not it be gerrymandering in Scotland I do not know, but it looks like it, and the mere fact that it looks like it is something about which we must be very careful.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I intervene in this debate as a Welshman representing a London constituency for one reason only, that frequently it is debates about matters which are not perhaps the most obvious which are nevertheless the most revealing. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) is leaving, because I am about to insult him, and perhaps he should be here when I do.
The Amendments which the Committee is considering should be looked at carefully. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn may leave after my next three sentences. This is the second time we have heard this nonsense from him about South-East Essex, and this obscure story about what took place in the odd ward of Boston in the eighteenth century. He

ended up with a great cry about corruption, and his hon. Friend behind him said that it was a straight piece of corruption and that the Home Secretary should be put in prison.
Even the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) was moved, in a most unaccustomed manner, to say something quite insulting at the end of his speech—it was rather like being bitten by a butterfly.
If one examines these proposals, it is fascinating to find that none of the political arguments of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn against the Government holds water in relation to Scotland and Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Everybody says "rubbish", but I have taken the best advice available, from which it is clear that the one thing which cannot be said is that there is a political advantage for either party in the Boundary Commission's recommendations. If there is not a political advantage to either party, how can it be a political fiddle not to introduce the recommendations at this stage?
Whatever may be the argument in relation to England or London, that argument as far as it applies to Scotland and Wales is palpable nonsense. It merely illustrates the way in which the Opposition treat the whole issue, which is a serious one of Parliamentary boundaries and their relationship to local government boundaries. It illustrates how they are prepared to look at them on one basis only, and that is the lowest possible political level of the votes which they can get.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As I have stayed to hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks, may I ask him whether he has consulted the right hon. Lady the Paymaster-General and asked her what she thinks about this? On Second Reading, I made it clear that the only reason we could deduce for the Government's actions both in Scotland and in England and Wales was that they would incur disadvantages from the recommendations.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman started off by saying that the Government's motive must be malicious, but he then said that he could not prove they were malicious because, on balance,


there was no advantage to them in the Commission's recommendations. He then said, "Nevertheless, because I make the initial assumption, that must be the reason why they will not do it." There is another good reason why they will not do it, and that is that there is a strong administrative argument for not doing it at this stage.
I do not wish to intervene at length in what seems to be a Celtic battle, but the Opposition should see the logical fallacy in their attitude over Scotland.
If one has read the Press recently, particularly those organs of the Press which regard themselves as enshrining the responsibility of Fleet Street, one has noticed that one argument which has come up continually—and I have even heard it from the Dispatch Box, particularly from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—is that if the Government really have an administrative argument, surely they would have introduced legislation two or three years ago so as to postpone the operation of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in advance of knowing what would be the recommendations of the Local Government Commission.
This was a strong argument on the other side as to the touchstone of the honesty and sincerity of the administrative argument which was put by the Government. The argument was as follows, "If you really believe this argument, why did you not, two years ago, after the Redcliffe-Maud Commission was set up but before it reported, come to the House of Commons and say that there was a strong administrative argument, and postpone the redistribution until after the Report of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission?" Had the Government done that, it would have been the touchstone of their sincerity.
We are now having complaints, particularly from the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands, that the Government have done precisely that in relation to Scotland. He was saying that the implementation of the Report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland was being postponed until after the Wheatley Commission's Report, and that we do not know

what is in it. He said that the House is in ignorance of what the Wheatley Commission will report, and that that is therefore no ground for postponing the implementation of the Boundary Commission's Report. It is the exact converse of the argument which is being put in relation to England.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Wylie: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates the point I was arguing: why wait until all the work has been done, as it has been done by the Scottish Boundary Commission, before telling them "You are wasting your time"?

Mr. Richard: That makes the fallacy even more fallacious. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying is that the Government should have come to the House and said in relation to the report of the Boundary Commission, the contents of which it did not know, "Please will you, the House of Commons, now agree to postpone, in ignorance of something which is coming in the future, the implementation of the Boundary Commission's Report because of the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud and Wheatley Reports?", of which also it is in total ignorance".
If such a case were to arise, I can almost imagine the sort of speech that would be made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. We would hear all about the watchdogs of the constitution and would be told that the Government were treating the House of Commons with total contempt by asking it to postpone possible implementation of the Boundary Commission's Report in ignorance of what the Redcliffe-Maud Report has to say.
It illustrates what many hon. Members on this side of the House have been saying ever since the argument started. This matter is nothing to do with the constitution. It is about votes and about what the Opposition think they can get out of it.

Mr. Gower: These Amendments, which relate to Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland, can be regarded as supplemental to the case which we have adduced against the Government's proposals for England. The Government's alibi for their action is slightly different in each case.
In the case of England the alibi is that the Redcliffe-Maud Report has now to be examined and considered and, in due course, very large changes will be made in the local government set-up and that major boundary chances must be postponed until that has happened.
In the case of Scotland, the alibi is slightly different. The argument there is that the Wheatley Commission has not yet reported and we must wait. If it has not yet reported, the procedure of consideration will be a little later than in the case of England, so that the time when the boundary changes will be made also will be later than in the case of England.
The alibi is different again, in regard to Wales. The document on which judgment is based there is the White Paper which was published two years ago. Although there is a good deal of acceptance of the major proposals, in that case we are told that we must fall in line with England and Scotland, but for no other reason—except perhaps the rather more refined argument of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Refined?

Mr. Gower: I should have said the rather more sophisticated argument of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that the Welsh proposals cannot now be implemented in the form in which they were put forward two years ago because they have to be remoulded to accord with the form and pattern of the implementation of the Royal Commission for England.

Mr. Michael Foot: I did not say "to accord with those in England". I said "to take into account the recommendations for England". All of us in Wales have understood that that was bound to be the situation.

Mr. Gower: I do not dissent from that. What I was saying was that the alibi is slightly different in each case.
In the case of Ulster, I believe that the alibi is based on a recently published White Paper. It is a slightly different argument in the context of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Howie: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that the White Paper to which he has referred in rela-

tion to Northern Ireland was published by the Government of Northern Ireland and therefore must be subjected to the closest scrutiny?

Mr. Gower: I pass to my next point. We there have four slightly different reasons given by the Government why they should not implement the separate Boundary Commission Reports for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) said, in regard to Northern Ireland it is based on a report which will require the maximum study and consideration over a long period.
In relation to Scotland, there will emerge a massive document—a document which has not yet been published—which again will require careful scrutiny and study. In the case of Wales there will be the White Paper, which again will be an involved and difficult document. We therefore have all these different alibis for the Government's proposal as outlined in this Bill.
It is reasonable that we should have before us these Amendments to deal with Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Our objections to the procedure being followed in Scotland, Ireland and Wales are as clear and firm as they are as applying to England.
We do not take the view put forward by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that Parliament should be a rubber stamp for commissions of this kind. We have never subscribed to that view. But we adhere to the view that this type of subject-matter is the least suitable for what the hon. Member described as the unbiased and unfettered judgment of the House of Commons. We believe the House of Commons is not at its best in dealing with matters of this kind. These are matters in which politics are so closely involved that it is difficult for any Government of any party to reach a lefty, dispassionate and objective judgment on the issues before them.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Could the hon. Member tell the House which way he voted on the Greater London Bill?

Mr. Gower: That would be completely out of order. Our point of view here is consistent with what the Conservative Government of 1953 did in


relation to a previous Boundary Commission Report. Major Lloyd George, the then Home Secretary, came forward promptly with proposals which were consistent with the major findings of the Boundary Commissions at that time.
Although we do not suggest that Parliament should slavishly adopt in minute detail all the proposals of any Boundary Commission, we feel that the onus is upon Parliament to prove the case for making major changes. Certainly Parliament and the Government must have a very strong case indeed if they are to make parcel changes of the kind which are now before us. Our objections in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are just as powerful as our objections in relation to England.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that we were about to see the biggest changes in local government for over 100 years. If that is the case, then they should require longer and more careful and mature consideration by Parliament than any previous changes. The case for long delay is weakened rather than strengthened by that consideration.
If we have to wait all that time, the House and hon. Members who are elected will in a sense in many parts of the country be wholly unrepresentative. There will be constituencies in Scotland, as there will be in England, far too large, and others perhaps too small. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale surely is not in favour of that. The situation will become further aggravated as the years go by.
The longer and the more mature the consideration given to these local government matters, the worse the problem will become. Surely the sensible course is to implement the findings of the Boundary Commission now and then to take a prolonged period for mature consideration which is required if, in the words of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, we are to see the biggest changes in local government for more than 100 years.

Mr. Alec Jones: I wish to oppose Amendment No. 11, which pays special attention to Wales, for a number of reasons. Having studied the White Paper entitled "Local Government

in Wales", it is probably fair to say that of all parts of the United Kingdom Wales is the furthest advanced with its proposals for the reorganisation of local government. In view of that, surely it is logical to wait to settle local government boundaries before moving on to deal with Parliamentary boundaries.
Hon. Members may be aware that under the Parliamentary boundary proposals, the two Rhondda constituencies will be amalgamated. In view of that, perhaps I should declare my interest at the outset.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) argued along two lines. First, he said that the proposed Parliamentary boundaries in Wales were consistent with local government proposals. He went on to suggest, secondly, that the proposals for Wales were more logical. Indeed, the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) described them as being more fair. If we examine them, I suggest that they will be found neither logical nor fair.
I represent only a small part of Wales and I would not claim to speak for the Welsh people; he would be a very brave man who tried to speak for the whole of Wales on any issue. However, I venture to suggest that I speak with more authority for the people of Wales than does the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn.
The biggest constituency in Wales is Newport, with 70,143 electors. The "logical" proposal was to make the biggest constituency even bigger. The capital city, Cardiff, at present has three constituencies, the largest of which has about 65,000 electors and the smallest 57,000, making a difference of 7,799. The "logical" proposal was to create four constituencies for Cardiff, the largest with 58,531 electors and the smallest with 38,247, a difference of 20,085. The creation of neighbouring constituencies with such great differences in electorates can hardly be termed logical.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the creation of the small constituency for Cardiff makes allowance for future expansion of the population. That is the answer to his question.

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman studies the proposals, he will find that the other constituencies are being reduced as well, so the difference of 20,000 electors is likely to remain. Then, again, the amalgamated Rhondda constituencies will have an electorate of 60,910, which will make the new constituency the third largest in Wales, with an electorate 30 per cent. above the electoral quota for Wales. Those types of proposals cannot be described as logical.
How consistent are the proposed parliamentary boundaries with local government boundaries? In fact, the Boundary Commission proposes the very opposite. It proposes that the Borough of Rhondda should contain not only the Rhondda constituency, but parts of the constituency of Pontypridd. Under the proposals contained in the White Paper, the Rhondda borough would take in the northern part of the parish of Llantrisant, which is now part of the Pontypridd constituency. The electorate of Rhondda would increase by 8,471, bringing it up to 74,639 on the basis of the 1967 figures. When that is compared with the Cardiff proposal of 38,000, where is the logic when we are creating constituencies of 38,000 and 75,000 electors.
All this, as the hon. Gentleman told us, is in the name of logic.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but the figure of 38,000 is 38,000 going up because of an allowance for future expansion. His whole argument falls to the ground, therefore.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Jones: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken that point, because the Rhondda figure of 74,000 is the minimum size envisaged for Rhondda, taking no account of future types of development.
The difference between Rhondda's size of 75,000 and the Cardiff constituency of 38,000—and we could have taken the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) who would have been about 30,000—

Mr. William Edwards: I hope that my hon. Friend will not dare suggest it.

Mr. Jones: I appreciate that, and will not take it.
Merioneth will have about 30,000, so that the difference between that and the proposed constituency of Rhondda will be 45,000. Can that be described as a great logical advance? The difference between the small constituencies and the new large one would be greater than the electorates of some half dozen of the constituencies proposed for Wales.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has decided on his proposed course of action. We should wait to fix our local government boundaries in the way that he suggests. If he feels in need of support he will be glad to know that he has the backing of the Rhondda Borough Council and the Glamorgan County Council, the Communist Party in Rhondda and the Welsh Nationalist Party in Rhondda.
My right hon. Friend's proposals to marry the Parliamentary constituencies with local government boundaries were approved by all the political parties with any real measure of electoral support in the Rhondda area. In addition, they are approved by the local trade unions and even by the Rhondda Federated Chambers of Trade, which can hardly be described as being politically motivated. All these organisations agree that it would be foolish to draw new Parliamentary boundaries which are not as consistent as possible with the new local government boundaries.

Mr. Roy Hughes: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the so-called logic of the Opposition and is arguing that the constituency boundaries should be consistent with local government boundaries. In his remarks, he has referred to my constituency, and this is where the consistency lies. The Boundary Commission's constituency recommendation is that it should follow the existing local government boundaries, and it is making a small but perfectly logical amendment to that effect, I agree though with my hon. Friend's overall argument.

Mr. Jones: I am obliged to my hon.
Friend for that suggestion. I do not suggest that there is anything wrong in the proposals for Newport, but it is not logical to speak of creating new constituencies while retaining other constituencies of 30,000 electors whilst, at the same time, discussing a vast change in local government. I do not think that it is logical or founded on fact.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I thought perhaps that it might help the Committee at this stage if I made a short intervention now, as we seem to have come to an end of some of the speeches from the Principality and a number of hon. Members are rising to discuss Scottish affairs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) does not entirely disagree that I should say a little about the Principality.
One of the main arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) was that the Government were using the Redcliffe-Maud Report as one of their main arguments for not carrying out the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in England, Scotland. Ireland and Wales. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the Redcliffe-Maud Report does not affect Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. We have been told over and over again by the Government, not only in the White Paper of July, 1967, but also in a debate—the Secretary of State for Wales nods—exactly what their views were on local government reform in Wales. I do not suggest that they have come to a final decision, but we have a fairly clear idea what is in the Government's mind concerning local government in Wales. It cannot be argued that the Government can, in all sincerity, disregard the recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they affect Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): The hon. Gentleman is surely aware that I promised all local authorities in Wales that they would have the right to consider the Redcliffe-Maud proposals and whether they wished to propose any changes in local government structure in the light of those proposals. This process is now under way.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I should not disagree with the action that the right hon. Gentleman has taken in this respect. Obviously, the local authorities have a right to be considered. All I say is that a great number of public servants in Wales have been kept on the hook far too long.
One point which the Government cannot overlook in this respect is that if a Boundary Commission is set up, be it for

Wales, for Scotland or for England, and the Government of the day totally disregard the recommendations which it puts forward, it undoubtedly downgrades the standing of Royal Commissions. This cannot be denied. Therefore, we must consider the position of these eminent men, and there were and are three eminent Welshmen on the Commission. It must be clear to them, as it is to us, why the Government are not going through with the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. Even these three eminent gentlemen, who carry on nonparty political work, must know that the Government, for political reasons, are not carrying out the recommendations. The Government do not deny it. In fact, the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) admitted that it was all a question of votes. Those were his very words. This is true. The Under-Secretary of State for the Scottish Office nods. He would not deny that the hon. Member for Barons Court said that it was all a question of votes.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). He was saying that the whole of the factitious opposition from the Opposition was due to votes. The hon. Gentleman may dissent from that proposition, but he must not charge my hon. Friend with saying that there was some political manoeuvring on the part of the Government.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: That is an interesting intervention by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), to whose contribution we listened earlier. But none of us were taken in by the arguments that he then produced. The hon. Gentleman said that he had very little respect for Parliamentary Commissions. This is very clear. This is the attitude which has been taken by the party opposite— or at least that part of it which wags the tail.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has a good deal of power in tail wagging with the Labour Party today. He had a good deal to say when his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) tried to bring in legislation on industrial relations. He was perhaps one of the leaders of those who were against it and who made the Government fall on their face in this respect. I also suspect


that on this occasion he went along to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and said, "We are not having this Boundary Commission. We are not having it in Wales, in any case." I have known the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale for some time, but we had enough effervescence from him tonight to last a lifetime.

Mr. Michael Foot: rose—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Do effervescence again.

Mr. Michael Foot: I should like to put the hon. Gentleman straight. No such meeting occurred between myself and the Secretary of State for Wales on that matter. Of course, I am happy that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that the Government would be wiser to consult me more often. I am sure it is excellent advice.

Mr. George Thomas: Very dangerous advice.

Mr. Michael Foot: But on this occasion it did not occur.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale do meet sometimes. I look forward to the time when we get an identical view between the two of them.
The hon. Gentleman also said that we are insisting that the House of Commons should decide. I suggest that the runt of the Labour Party is deciding, not the House of Commons. The party opposite has a majority at the moment. Therefore, it is able to gerrymander this change in Parliamentary boundaries.
I was about to say, before the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale intervened, that the Welsh changes do not amount to very much. If the recommendations of the Boundary Commission were implemented, they would mean the loss of one seat in the Rhondda to the Labour Party. I do not suggest that the Communists or the Liberals would win the seat.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Or the Tories.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: But on this occasion the Commission said that it should be wiped out. That is why the party opposite would lose the seat, and there

would be an extra seat in Cardiff. It is possible that the Home Secretary's constituency would be improved if it was brought in. Certainly the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) would be improved.
It is possible, marginally, that the Tory Party would gain one seat in Cardiff, but I am not saying that it necessarily would. It would depend on the ups and downs of the political climate. I say that in respect of Wales the Government are gerrymandering to the tune of one and a half seats. What happens in England is another matter. My remarks the other day about the Home Secretary still stick. I believe that the Government are cheating and gerrymandering in England.
The points which have been made about the possibility of bringing forward the Boundary Commission's recommendations in Wales need underlining. Let nobody on the benches opposite argue that the recommendations favoured by the Government for local government reorganisation in Wales cut across, in any width, the Commission's terms of reference and the recommendations which it has made. Do not let it be argued tonight by Welsh Members opposite that they are debarred from making these changes because the local government changes which are envisaged will cut across them.

[Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair.]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: One of the advantages of having a Guillotine is that members of the Government party come forward to try to justify their proposals. We see them emerging from under flat stones, or wherever they come from, to do this, but I think that they have been singularly unsuccessful tonight.
We had, first, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who seemed to concentrate an this becoming an issue of the House of Lords, and how we could have a clash with the other place. The hon. Gentleman should not push this too far, or he may provoke the other place into bringing forward a Bill to abolish this House. Bearing in mind the Government's record, I think that such a proposal could attract a great deal of public support.
Then we had the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), whose only argument was that we had not changed the local government boundaries in Scotland for many years, and we now had the ridiculous situation that some municipal wards had 50,000 voters, while others had only 6,000 voters. He said that the situation in Glasgow was chaotic; therefore, why both about Parliamentary boundaries? That was the basis of his argument.
What the hon. Gentleman did not say was that the reason why we have not had changes in ward boundaries in Glasgow, and why this was dealt with in paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the Commission's Report, was that in April, 1967 the corporation said that there were no proposals at all to change local government boundaries. There have been almost 30 years of uninterrupted Labour rule in Glasgow. Some municipal wards are in a chaotic state, some being enormous, and some tiny. This is the basis of our case about Scotland.
It has been suggested that we have not made it clear that reorganisation will be favourable to the Conservative Party, and damaging to the Labour Party. Anybody who looks at the situation in Scotland must realise that reorganisation would damage the Labour Party, and damage it substantially, because in Scotland, as in every part of the United Kingdom, there are small, declining, constituencies in the centres of towns. We have some of these in Glasgow. Some are becoming the new rotten burghs, with 15,000, or 20,000 electors, and these constituencies are getting smaller every year.
The hon. Member for Provan and I represent two constituencies in Glasgow. He has about 60,000 constituents and I have about 66,000, but let us consider the ridiculous situation in some of the other Glasgow constituencies. Glasgow, Central has 22,000 electors, Kelvingrove has 20,000 electors. Both the hon. Member for Provan and I could say that we represent three times the number of people in those constituencies. Apart from the argument about doing a good job—the hon. Member for Provan is a good Member when it comes to looking after his constituents, as he would be the first to admit—we have a gross imbalance in Glasgow, as in many other

parts of the country. Dumbartonshire has enormous constituencies, yet in the centre of Glasgow there is a constituency with 20,000 electors, and this figure is going down fast.
As the hon. Member for Provan knows, because of the pace of redevelopment in Glasgow, houses in the city centre are being knocked down and fewer houses are being erected in their place, because we now work densities which are about one-third, or a half, of what they used to be. In addition, some of our residential areas are being turned into commercial areas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will admit that the situation is getting worse.
The big constituencies are getting bigger, while the small constituencies are getting smaller. Is this the basis on which Parliamentary democracy should work? We are aiming for constituencies which are equal overall, and also at having a review from time to time. The argument advanced in respect of England is that we should postpone introducing these proposals until we get the Redcliffe-Maud Report, but in Scotland the argument is even crazier, and more indefensible. We are told that we must await the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. In Scotland this is becoming known as the "Never Never Commission". We do not know when it will report, and every time there is a Press report that we shall soon get it, that is denied, and no report is received.
But far more important than that is that even if the report does come fairly soon, as the Secretary of State must admit, one thing about which we are fairly certain is that it will not be unanimous. I have no inside information—I do not know—but, knowing the calibre of the people that he has put on this Commission, the right hon. Member must be well aware that the possibility of a unanimous report is very remote. Even if we assumed that it was unanimous, that it recommended that certain things should be done, do the Government really think that they could get the reforms through within two or three years? The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and some of his hon. Friends have reminded us about those who have nothing to lose but their chains. It is a telling phrase when it is applied to some of the old rural burghs


in Scotland. They certainly have nothing to lose but their chains.
I suggest that if we have, first, to think of the report's coming out; secondly, to assume a majority for the report; and, thirdly, to remember that legislation has to come forward, it is crystal-clear that it will be many years before there is any meaningful legislation on local government reform in Scotland. Even if the changes are as definite, fundamental and far-reaching as we would expect from this Government the Boundary Commission will have to start its work all over again, and this will take a long time. It is clear that whatever happens there will not be substantial and fundamental local government reorganisation for a long time, and every day that we postpone it the constituencies in Glasgow will become even more unequal.
I do not want to press the political point, but it is obvious from a study of the report and its recommendations that it will harm the Government party. Some members of the Government representing the Scottish Office would be affected. But this is irrelevant. It does not matter whether this means 10 more seats for the Tories or for Labour; the fundamental point is that we now have a ridiculous situation in which some constituencies are enormous and growing and others are small and becoming smaller all the time. This is not a democratic way of running the country, and it is absolutely against the law.
Our objection arises from the fact that there is this great imbalance in Scotland, and it is getting worse. The Government are under a legal obligation to bring forward their recommendations, but they are not doing so. The most dangerous and worst feature of the question is that they are using a Government majority to force through legislation which is not only against the law, but is very damaging and harmful to their own political interests. This is a scandalous situation. It is utterly indefensible. For the hon. Member for Provan to suggest that the one argument for it is that we have the same crazy and unjust imbalance in local government wards in Glasgow is ridiculous, because it stems from the same thing—inaction by a Labour majority in the local council in Glasgow for many years.
Despite what we sometimes think about the opinions of the Secretary of State we generally regard him as an honest man. He must know that there is no justification for delaying the implementation of the Boundary Commission's Report for Scotland. If he holds it up in this way the situation will become worse. It will be a long time before vie have fundamental changes in local government, and if we do the Boundary Commission will have to start again. If we have a major change in the Glasgow area all the proposals for Glasgow will go haywire. If there is a major change in the Edinburgh proposals to extend the boundaries of the city we shall upset all these recommendations. The obvious thing is to take into account any changes in local government boundaries the next time the Boundary Commission undertakes a review.
This would be the sensible thing. For the Government to allow a Commission to go ahead and spend a great deal of the taxpayers' money and take up so much of the time of wise and profound men and then say, "We will not implement the report unless something very significant happens," is quite indefensible. Although the arguments on England have been put forward, and the battle has started, can we not isolate Scotland from this proposal, bring in some constituencies of a sensible size and make our parliamentary democracy in Scotland a little more meaningful and just than the plain gerrymandering in England is doing?

Mr. George Willis: I am always interested in the speeches of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). He has an amazing facility for creating his own Aunt Sallies and then, elaborately and hurriedly and usually without humour, destroying them. He condemned the Secretary of State for something which he has not yet done. That illustrates the dire straits of the Tory Party in Scotland. They have to create an issue where none exists to make a political battle. I should have thought that there were far more important matters in Scotland to fight about than that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Why not do them? Why waste the time of Scottish Members with something which has not yet happened[HON. MEMBERS: "It is your Bill."] The Bill does not say that the Secretary of


State will disregard the Boundary Commission—

Mr. Hector Monro: Want to bet?

Mr. Willis: What a high prophetic argument! What a bunch of politicians!
Then, the hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend is doing this terrible thing—which he is not doing, incidentally, according to the Bill—because it will put the Tories in a stronger position—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I did not say that at all.

Mr. Willis: Yes, the hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be to the advantage of the Tories to carry out the Boundary Commission proposals. He should discuss this with some of his Edinburgh colleagues. It will not make the Labour Party any better off to ignore the proposals of the Boundary Commission. I understand that the Edinburgh Tories expect to win two seats in Edinburgh if the recommendations are not accepted.

Mr. Wylie: I am one of those who share that view. However, of course, there is more to Scotland than just Edinburgh.

Mr. Willis: But seven out of 70 seats in Scotland are in Edinburgh—a proportion of 10 per cent. The hon. and learned Gentleman admits that if the changes do not happen the Tories expect Labour to lose two seats. Therefore, to ignore the proposals will be detrimental to Labour in Edinburgh. So the hon. Gentleman is not correct on either count.
In the Bill, in effect, my right hon. Friend is saying, "The Boundary Commission has reported, and a report is expected within the next few months from the Local Government Commission. In view of the fact that both these are likely to affect the electors, surely it is common sense to wait a few weeks until the Local Government Commission reports." What is wrong with that? I should have thought that that was wise administration. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart would not, of course, because he rushes gleefully into anything, particularly if it presents an opportunity

to attack the Government. Never mind good administration, never mind the inconvenience to which electors will be put; this is a good Tory battle cry. In other words, the well-being of Scotland and its people must take second place to Tory propaganda.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Government intend to accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission just like that, when they are under no obligation to do so and they are not doing so with the Boundary Commission? If this is not a fiddle, what is?

Mr. Willis: Unlike the hon. Member, I do not claim to be a prophet. I am a politician dealing with the political realities of the day, not with hypothetical situations of the future. The hon. Member would be a much more successful politician if he adopted the same attitude and the Tory Party would do better in Scotland if they dealt with the issues which exist, not with those which they create and build up for themselves.
This intolerable situation demonstrates what the Tories are prepared to do. They are prepared to put everybody in Scotland to inconvenience to suit their propaganda. I am never surprised by the Tories. One of the first things I learned in politics was that the Tories would do anything to get back into power. I can look back over a very long political career, which has not been unsuccessful, and in that time I have seen some of the things which the Tories have been prepared to do. Hon. Members opposite can never accustom themselves to the idea that they are not the Government. They cannot understand that they are not sitting on this side of the Committee. They find it most difficult to adjust their minds to the fact that somebody else is the Government.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. This is very good fun, but I should be obliged if the right hon. Member would return to the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: Thank you very much, Mr. Jennings. I agree that I strayed, but I was sorely tempted by the speech of the hon. Member for Cathcart.
As I read the Bill, my right hon. Friend says, "The Boundary Commission has issued a Report. Within a few weeks we shall have the report of the local Government Commission. Both affect the electorate. Surely in these circumstances it is common sense to consider the two together?" Is there anything wrong with that?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. Willis: You know nothing about Scotland. Get away down to the West Country.

Mr. Cooke: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time, addressing each other as "You". Mr. Willis.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of order. I addressed no one at all. I had no chance to do so.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member did not get a chance because he did not rise to a point of order. He merely jumped to his feet. Mr. Willis.

Mr. Willis: rose—

Mr. Cooke: rose—

Mr. Willis: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope the two hon. Members will make up their minds. Mr. Willis or Mr. Robert Cooke.

Mr. Willis: Perhaps I may continue my few remarks.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Let us hear the peroration.

Mr. Willis: You were complaining that we were not making speeches. I am sorry, Mr. Jennings—you were not complaining. The hon. Member for Cathcart was complaining a short time ago that no hon. Member on this side of the Committee made a speech. He said that one advantage of a guillotine Motion was that the Committee could hear speeches from my hon. Friends. When he hears such a speech he does not like it. He must make up his mind.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The point is clearly made. Let us get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: Thank you once again, Mr. Jennings.
My right hon. Friend says that in these circumstances the wisest thing is to wait until we have both Reports, to consider them and then to do what is best in the interests of the people of Scotland. That should commend the support, not the indignation, of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Do they want my right hon. Friend to do what is best for the people of Scotland? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Then why are they kicking up such a row? The Bill enables him to do that.

Mr. George Younger: Would it not be better for the people of Scotland if the Secretary of State were to obey the law?

Mr. Willis: Up to now he has not disobeyed it. He is merely suggesting an amendment of the law to enable a wise course to be taken. That should appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, as it appeals to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: In his loud speech—

Mr. Willis: Loud?

Mr. MacArthur: —the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Fast (Mr. Willis) drew attention to the form of words used in this provision. The Government have chosen this form of words to give consistency to the deceit which they are practising throughout the United Kingdom. The purpose behind these words is precisely the same as it is for England; to postpone indefinitely the implementation of the Boundary Commission's recommendations, and to do so for party gain.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was confronting the political realities of the day. That is what the Government are doing. They are confronting the party political realities of the day. Because the reality shows that they will not win the game, they are changing the rules half way through it.

Mr. Willis: How many seats will the Labour Party gain in Perthshire as a result of this?

Mr. MacArthur: We have also heard a curious and unwise new argument. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) pursued it strongly. It is that the House of Commons alone should


determine constituency boundaries because, he said, we can best understand the delicate links between an hon. Member and his constituents and can best protect those links from disturbance. The argument implied that the Boundary Commissions should have much less authority and that too much significance is being attached to their recommendations.
This is a new excuse, and I think that we are hearing it for the first time. But the Labour Government are not concerned with the delicate links between an hon. Member and his constituents. They are concerned only with the delicate relationship between Labour candidates and votes. The requirements of the 1949 and 1958 Acts are not convenient for hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is why they are ignoring them. The 1958 Act in particular is not convenient for the Labour Government in their preoccupation with votes. Thus, we have a Measure which in Scotland, as elsewhere, legalises the Government's illegality.
The pretence in England is that the recommendations cannot be adopted, except where they happen to suit the Labour Party, because the Redcliffe-Maud Report has been published. But in Scotland the Wheatley report has not been published. The proposition there—and this is the pretence of the Government—is that action should be delayed because of the impact which that report may have on local government boundaries and, so it is argued, on Parliamentary boundaries. The reality is that the recommendations in Scotland are seen by the Secretary of State as a disadvantage to the Labour Party, and for this reason he believes that indefinite postponement is necessary.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said that in Scotland we were on the eve of great reforms in local government and that tomorrow, or perhaps Monday, the structure would be completely changed, and that it would therefore be wrong in the meantime to go ahead with the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. If so, he is a remarkably optimistic person. The Minister of State himself said earlier this year that it would take between five and 10 years to implement any recommendations which the Wheatley Commission might make, and we have

history to show us that we shall encounter delay and not speed. We have had delay after delay in the whole history of local government reform in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman himself refused to act on the White Paper which the Conservative Government published in 1962. Instead, he set up a Royal Commission. The Commission's Report has been delayed three times already. It was to have been published last year, then late last year, then early this year, and now it is to be later this year. We do not know when it will see the light of day. It is utterly wrong for the hon. Member for Provan to pretend that there will be speedy action. He knows as well as I do that there will be no speedy action and that it will take years and years before any of the recommendations which the Wheatley Commission may make are implemented.
If he believes that Parliamentary boundaries should take note of whatever statutory changes there may be in the structure of local government in Scotland, the time for that is in the next Boundary Commission review, between 10 and 15 years from now when the Commission will sit again and when it should take note of all those changes, if those changes have been effected by then. The moment is not now, before even the publication of the Report. The action which should be taken now is to implement the Boundary Commission's recommendations and in 10 years to allow the Commission to take note of any action which may have been taken by then, following the Wheatley Commission, and so to bring Parliamentary boundaries up to date at that time. Unless that is done, in the meantime the present anomalies in certain Scottish constituencies will continue and will get worse.
Speedy implementation of the Wheatley Commission's recommendations would be totally contrary to the assurances which the Government have given to local authorities and other interested bodies in Scotland. The whole theme of the Government has been that when the Wheatley Report is published there will be detailed consultation, and we know that detailed consultation must mean lengthy consultation. No doubt that was what the Minister of State had in mind when he said that five to 10 years would elapse before the Wheatley recommendations were implemented in any way.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be party to this shoddy fiddle with seats. I very much regret that he should bring this shame to the great office which he holds.

Earl of Dalkeith: I rather think that the speech which I made last Wednesday on another Amendment was the speech which I should have made tonight on this. However, as it was not a very good speech, I shall not weary the House by repeating it.
I should like to declare the interest which I think I ought to declare, because it so happens that my constituency is one of those which, I believe, would benefit considerably from my point of view if the Boundary Commission's recommendations were implemented, at the expense of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). This highlights the point clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) about the difference between certain constituencies in Scotland. I have about 32,000 voters, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West has about 75,000, and yet our constituencies adjoin. It is clearly absurd that this difference should continue and should become greater rather than less. It is obviously high time that something was done about it.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) suggested that the onus was on the Opposition to show why the Commission's Report should be implemented now rather than its being on the Government to show why they are not implementing it now. He has got it the wrong way round. Why appoint a Commission if its Report is to be ignored? I was surprised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) when he dealt with a very important point of principle. He said that it was for the House of Commons to decide what should be done about the Commission's Report, that it was for the House to draw a proper balance.
9.0 p.m.
Up to a point I agree with the hon. Member, but not to the extent of ignoring and shelving the whole of the Commission's Report. It might be that it could be argued that the Boundary Commission has slipped up in one or two respects, and that certain points ought to be varied

by the House of Commons, but no one would pretend that this holds good for the whole report. The Government cannot try to wriggle out of the charge levelled against them that for England this is a monstrous fiddle.
I should like to make this point to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). He has missed the point and he does not know why lie is supporting the Government. The reason why he is here supporting the Government, as far as Scotland is concerned, is to give the English Ministers a better argument for sticking to their guns than they have so far shown us.
If the Secretary of State for Scotland does as he ought to do, and proceeds with the Scottish Report, he will undermine the Home Secretary's case. That should be made abundantly clear. Even if by any chance the Wheatley Commission argument were advanced in Scotland in the same way as the Redcliffe-Maud argument is advanced in England, it would not hold water. This is because, almost without exception, the changes recommended in Scotland concern cities. They are the result of slum clearance whereby the central populations have been moved to the peripheries of cities. Whatever the Wheatley Commission will recommend, one thing it will not recommend will be the division of existing cities.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the Wheatley Commission will come along and cut Edinburgh in half? Of course it will not. Using the Wheatley Report as an argument against carrying out the Boundary Commission's recommendations for somewhere like Edinburgh is a non-starter. I feel sorry for the Secretary of State for Scotland. We all know that he is an honourable man, but he is being led along by the Home Secretary in a very unhappy way. He is playing the English game; he is helping the English to make their fiddle more convincing. I beg him to think again and to forge ahead with the implementation of the commission's recommendations for Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): II is tempting to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith I into his flattering remarks, but as I said when we last debated this matter, I prefer the abuse


of hon. Gentlemen opposite to their flattery—I always think that it sounds very much more sincere. [Interruption.] That goes particularly for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). I have taken a note of all their delightful epithets, "chicanery", "deceit", "gerrymandering"—we are not discussing England at the moment, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
It shows a limitation of language that hon. Members opposite have found little or nothing new to say on these Amendments. They take refuge in the sort of disguised abuse which we had from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). He talked about the Royal Commission being delayed three times. Who delayed it? As soon as we set up a Royal Commission hon. Members opposite put down a Question asking when it will report. No one has delayed the Royal Commission, and no one should delay Royal Commissions. They take the amount of time that they require for the consideration of the problems with which they have to deal.
The hon. Gentleman should know that neither I nor anyone else outside the Royal Commission has delayed it. He knows quite well that two hon. Gentlemen are members of the Royal Commission and that they would be the first to say something about it if there were any interference with it.

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Ross: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman was quite clear. I wrote down his words. He said that the Royal Commission's report had been delayed three times. I do not know who has delayed it, or what was the implication of his remark.

Mr. MacArthur: I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had delayed the report. I said that the Government had announced that the report would be published early last year and that there had been three delays. The report has not yet been published. I referred to the matter to demonstrate the length of time which is passing before the publication of this much delayed report.

Mr. Ross: It is not possible for the Government to announce when any Royal Commission, while it is still deliberating

—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire would listen. All that we can do is suggest when a Commission is likely to report. This Royal Commission is deliberating now. It is likely to be able to report, as we have said—and this is all that we have said because we cannot speak with authority on this point—later in the summer. We know that it is considering the boundaries and powers of local authorities.
Hon. Members opposite should know that some of their own number have given evidence to the Royal Commission. I think it is right to say that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has made public speeches about the changes that he would like to be made. They are very considerable changes which cut across local government boundaries.
The question is: should we at this stage make decisions affecting constituencies which normally are expected to have some relationship to local government boundaries? My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was right about carrying out the work of a Member of Parliament. He has local authorities with whom he deals. Things can be made very difficult by frequent changes.
This is a practical problem. The local government map of England and Wales is being torn up. It is not a question of chicanery. It is a question of practical politics about whether we do anything about it. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) said that there was nothing inconsistent about Wales in the Boundary Commission's Report, even with the new proposals put forward by the Government. He should know quite well from the assurance given in an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that it has always been understood—and my right hon. Friend has said this to local authorities—that it was for local authorities to consider whether the position in Wales would be affected by decisions and ideas put forward in the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
There is also the fact that there are 19 constituencies which may well create difficulties in fitting new boundaries into what has hitherto been considered to be the criterion for behaviour by the Boundary Commission.
In the case of Scotland, it is even worse because we do not know when the Royal Commission will report. Knowing that it will report, however, should we blindly go forward and make certain changes knowing quite well that we would need to make other changes? I was quite right to suggest that we should stand still.
The effect of the Amendment is to redefine the term "as soon as may be". It redefines it to October this year, whereas the Government have suggested that by the end of March next year I should be in a position to say whether we will implement the Boundary Commission's Report or decide that the evidence is that it would be inconvenient from the point of view of practical organisation to have more than one reorganisation within a measurable time.
Since I became Secretary of State, I have been trying to reform local government and to deal with particular problems in their urgency as I saw them arise. There was the question of amalgamation of police. I got many complaints about that and was told that I should wait for the Wheatley Commission. We did the same thing concerning water, which was urgently required for industrial purposes in Scotland, and we had amalgamations and the creation of new water board areas. Once again, I was told to wait for Wheatley. The same thing happened with social work; we were told to wait for Wheatley. When we are right up against something, however, we are told not to wait for Wheatley.

Earl of Dalkeith: rose—

Mr. Ross: I want to take up a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), who suggested that on the latest Bill to be dealt with, nothing was said about waiting for Wheatley. The hon. and learned Member may not have done so, but on Second Reading the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) said:
 I wonder whether there is the same need to rush ahead with the Bill "—
that was the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill—
when we are about to receive the report of the Wheatley Commission, which must affect the regional groupings which we will have, which in turn will affect the Bill's implementation.

Earl of Dalkeith: rose—

Mr. Ross: I will give way presently. I will not run away from this, if the hon. Gentleman had been here and heard his hon. Friend's speech he would have appreciated this.
Then the Scottish Tory Whip, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), said:
 Is the Bill necessary in Scotland at this moment? Is this the right time? It is vital to have the answers on the Royal Commission before we come to final decisions.
That was on the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill on.23rd January this year.
Then we had another Front Bench spokesman from the Tory Party, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who tells me one day in a public speech that I ought to be gaoled in Barlinnie for something obscure which I had done and next day comes here and tells me that I am the most honest man in the House of Commons.
The hon. Member said:
…but it is perfectly possible that it "—
that is, the Wheatley Commission—
will make recommendations which none of us expect. We should then be in the position of having passed a Bill which, if the Wheatley recommendations should be substantially different from what we had expected, will become nonsense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 23rd January, 1969; c. 57, 68, 85.]
I could list some equivocal remarks even of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn on Second Reading indicating that we should wait for Wheatley.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have always indicated the other way round—that the trouble was that the local government reforms which we started in 1963 in Scotland—

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman did not start any.

Mr. Campbell: —had been held up and that if they had been put through sooner we would not be in the position of having been without recommendations.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the work he started was allowed to go on, and the results of it were passed to the Royal Commission, and so there was no time wasted in that respect, but if he thinks one can go on


the basis of an inter-departmental committee and a steering committee of local authorities to reorganise local authorities in Scotland, he is quite mistaken. One would require to have the authoritative backing of something in the nature of a Royal Commission before embarking on that kind of thing. I promised to give way to the noble Lord.

Earl of Dalkeith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but could he address himself to the point which I tried to make in my speech a little while ago, that places where boundary changes are necessary are inside cities; and does he seriously believe that any Royal Commission on local government is going suddenly to chop up Edinburgh or Glasgow into entirely new areas?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should just wait for it. I was about to come to the question of the Scottish position.

Earl of Dalkeith: It is relevant to the point the right hon. Gentleman was making.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said—and it has been accepted in a belated intervention by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) —that what matters is the local government boundaries.

Mr. Hogg: I did not say that at all. I said that the factors, including the relevance of the electoral quota and local government boundaries, are already defined in the law, in the Second Schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, which this Bill is a conspiracy to defeat.

Mr. Ross: It is not a conspiracy to defeat when one is taking action in the knowledge that those local boundaries, which limit the actions of the Boundary Commission, are likely to be changed.
I want to go into the position of Scotland and in relation to this one man, one vote business. There never has been any mathematical accuracy between Scotland and England in this respect, or between England and Wales for that matter, and it has always been, in relation to the electoral quota, a matter of fewer votes —I think something like 45,000 in Scotland—to elect a Member of Parliament. Within Scotland itself there is consider-

able variation. At present, there are about 20 Members of the House who are here for constituencies where the electorate is less than 40,000. Indeed, if we implemented the Boundary Commission's Report there would still be more than 10 Members representing constituencies with electorates of less than 40,000—including the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn.
Whether or not we implement the Boundary Commission's Report, Moray and Nairn will have an electorate of about 36,000.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: That is what I said.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire will have an electorate of just over 50,000 but next door to him, in the same county, the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) has an electorate of between 30,000 and 40,000. So we have, even between these two, not remotely separate areas—

Mr. MacArthur: Big rural areas.

Hon. Members: Ah.

Mr. Ross: It may well be that they are rural areas, but the limitations upon the Boundary Commission at present are such that we still get this difficult situation where we have someone with an electorate of over 50,000 and another just over 30,000—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman is saying, but rather more lengthily, what I said in my speech, but —and this is the question which I put to him and which he has not answered—does his reflection upon the situation mean that the Government are intending to reduce the 71 seats which are statutory in Scotland and which give rise to this situation?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should realise one simple thing about that. If we had intended to do that, there would have been something in the Bill to enable us to do it because we are governed by Statute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We had better be careful about this. There are many hon. Members representing English constituencies who may have been listening to me in respect of the electoral quota in Scotland and


who may be thinking about this, but it is not the Government's intention to reduce the 71 Scottish seats—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] Because Scotland is Scotland and not, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned the other day, because of the Act of Union. We departed a long time ago from the Act of Union. Towards the end of the 18th century our entitlement of Members was 45; today, we have 71.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, from the point of view of Scotland, have been trying to make a case out of nothing. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Tories in Scotland are very predictable and they will always get it wrong. This is why they are irrelevant in Scottish politics at present. I assure the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) that his speech tonight was very much out of character. I did not expect from his accusations of gerrymandering, of dishonesty, cheating and all the rest of it, or his mucking about with a name to get an epithet. He knows it ill-becomes a Campbell to talk about not having confidence in somebody.
I do not place any reliance on the historical reputations of clans to create this kind of situation. I think that it must have been evident to the hon. Gentleman that he was not very strong in his denunciations. What we are doing for Scotland and Northern Ireland—and it is interesting that we have had no speeches for Northern Ireland today—is right. We had—on 2nd July, I think—the report of the Northern Ireland Government on reorganisation. This has to be studied and its implications on boundaries must be looked at. The same is true in respect of the other Royal Commission, on Local Government. It is quite wrong for hon. Gentlemen to take it for granted that I have already made up my mind what to do. They cannot say this and at the same time say that I am a man with a reputation for honesty. They should make tip their minds. This is why I prefer their abuse to their flattery.
I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that what we say is right. It would be wrong to make the Amendments. To do so would mean that, whether or not we had the Royal Commission, no matter what that Royal Commission reported, I would need to implement the recom-

mendations of the Boundary Commission as it has presently reported, and that I would have no discretion in October of this year. Why October is mentioned I do not know. It is not to allow me to look at the Royal Commission's Report, because, irrespective of what the Royal Commission says, the Amendment provides that I must lay the Orders.
The Amendment is effectively a wrecking Amendment to take away the discretion that I and the Government have, and which I hope my hon. Friends think that we ought to have, in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the suggestion in respect of Wales does not stand.

Mr. Hogg: The Secretary of State for Scotland seems to be competing with the nine of diamonds for the title of the Curse of Scotland. I had not intended to intervene in the debate but for the sophistries to which we have just listened, although I was almost tempted to intervene because of the sophistries of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
Of course it is true, and everybody knows it is true, that no constituency can bear an exact relation to the electoral quota of the area of the United Kingdom to which that electoral quota applies. Everybody knows that, and nobody has pretended anything else.
The electoral quota for England, bearing that relation to the number 613 in the Schedule to the Act, is 58,000. That for Scotland is different, as is that for Wales. No constituency can exactly bear a relationship to its own electoral quota, but none the less the law requires that in deciding its boundaries it should bear some relationship to that—not an exact relationship but some relationship.
Many constituencies cannot bear an exact relationship to local government boundaries, but, equally, the Schedule to the Act provides that so far as is practicable constituencies should bear a relationship to local government boundaries. Some constituencies have to bear a relationship to the mere area of ground which a Member of Parliament has to cover in order to fight an election or to represent the constituency after he has been elected. But, again, the rules of law which are applicable to the situation provide that, so far as is practicable, that is something which the


Boundary Commission is bound to take into account.
It is nothing new that we on this side of the House have asked the Government to obey the law in all its characteristics. It is true that most of the grotesque distortions to which the Bill commits us are related to the size of constituency. But we have never contended that they should not bear relation to the local government boundaries. The fact is, of course, that the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions, coming as they do after a long delay of 15 years, are making a belated attempt to catch up with local government boundaries. This is true in respect of Wales and Scotland no less than it is true in respect of other parts of the United Kingdom, although in this Amendment we are dealing with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is common ground.
In the case of Wales—the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to say that it is not yet known in the case of Scotland, although I accept that it is true of Scotland, too— the fact is that the Boundary Commission's proposals bear a closer relationship to the Government's proposals for the reform of local government than does the status quo. But the Government insist on retaining the status quo because, as we claim, it means another seat or perhaps another two seats to them if they do.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, has said that one or two seats is very little. The House knows the argument. But how low can one sink if one sells one's honour for a seat or two? It is far more contemptible to do it for one or two seats. The hon. Gentleman might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, but he chooses to be hanged for a lamb every time. The Labour Party, wherever it governs, is characterised by petty tyranny, mitigated only by stupidity and incompetence.

Mr. Michael Foot: No such statement has been made about one seat or two seats. I took up the statement by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who conceded my point that the Boundary Commission in political terms was neutral. The whole of the argument posed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman falls to the ground.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is being more sophistical than the Committee can take. The Boundary Commission is neutral, but the effect of it may be favourable to one party or the other. A referee is neutral but he may give a goal against the hon. Gentleman —and in this case he would give a foul.
The Secretary of State did not even appear to know on which Amendment we propose to divide the Committee. We have been discussing a variety of Amendments, but the only one on which we are dividing is Amendment No. 7, which is to leave out "may at any time" and insert "shall".
The effect of that Amendment is no more than to compel the Secretary of State to perform his duty. If I may adapt the analogy which was applied to me the other day, the right hon. Gentleman is all Hyde and no Jekyll, all brimstone and no treacle. All that we are seeking to do in the Amendment is to impose upon the Secretary of State a duty to do that for which he has claimed for himself a discretion. Why should not we compel the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Home Department to perform the duty for which they applied to themselves a discretion? In the course of the debate they have given ample assurances to the Committee that they will perform their duties. Why should not they accept an obligation to do so?
I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Wales in his place. We have heard nothing from him in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman is always wrestling with his conscience. The trouble is that he always wins.

Mr. George Thomas: I only wish that I could pay the right hon. and learned Gentleman the same compliment—if he has a conscience.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not promoting the cause of Anglican-Methodist unity tonight.
I must return to the Amendment, so as not to incur your displeasure, Mr. Irving. The right hon. Gentleman was leading me


astray, in my simplicity. All that I was saying was that the only Amendment which we propose to divide upon is that which imposes upon the two right hon. Gentlemen a duty to do that which they have given ample assurance that they mean to do, anyway. If they are to be

trusted, why do not they accept the Amendment?

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 238, Noes 287.

Division No. 322.]
AYES
[9.33 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Amery, Rt. Hn, Julian
Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin


Astor, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Batsford, Brian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grant, Anthony
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, Dr, Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Black, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Murton, Oscar


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Neave, Airey


Body, Richard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nott, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hay, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heseltine, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bryan, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Chataway, Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Corfield, F, V.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robson Brown, Sir William


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dance, James
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott, Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Visoount
Scott-Hopkins, James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lawler, Wallace
Silvester, Frederick


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp; L'mington)


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fisher, Nigel
McMaster, Stanley
Tapsell, Peter



Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)





Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Waddington, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Woodnutt, Mark


Temple, John M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Worsley, Marcus


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Walters, Dennis
Wright, Esmond


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, N. R.


Tilney, John
Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hn. George


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wiggin, A. W.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Hector Monro.


Vickers, Dame Joan
Williams, Donald (Dudley)




Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hul1, W.)


Albu, Austen
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Archer, Peter
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John
Kelley, Richard


Ashley, Jack
English, Michael
Kenyon, Clifford


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Ennals, David
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ensor, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lawson, George


Barnes, Michael
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Leadbitter, Ted


Barnett, Joel
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Baxter, William
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Beaney, Alan
Finch, Harold
Lee, John (Reading)


Bence, Cyril
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus


Binns, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Booth, Albert
Ford, Ben
MacColl, James


Boston, Terence
Forrester, John
Macdonald, A, H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fowler, Gerry
McGuire, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Reginald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Gardner, Tony
Mackie, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Buchan, Norman
Gregory, Arnold
McMilian, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Caliaghan, Rt. Hn, James
Griffths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cant, R. B.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Malialieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mapp, Charles


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamling, William
Marks, Kenneth


Chapman, Donald
Hannan, William
Marquand, David


Concannon, J. D.
Harper, Joseph
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maxwell, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Haseldine, Norman
Mayhew, Christopher


Cronin, John
Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn, Anthony
Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, John


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Henig, Stanley
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hilton, W. S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Moonman, Eric


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Delargy, Hugh
Howie, W.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dell, Edmund
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Moyle, Roland


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Albert


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hunter, Adam
Neal, Harold


Dobson, Ray
Hynd, John
Newens, Stan


Doig, Peter
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Driberg, Tom
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oakes, Gordon


Dunn, James A.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Dunnett, Jack
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp; St. P'cras,S.)
Oram, Albert E.



Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orbach, Maurice







Orme, Stanley
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Tomney, Frank


Oswald, Thomas
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tuck, Raphael


Owen, Dr, David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Roebuck, Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Palmer, Arthur
Ryan, John
Wallace, George


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Park, Trevor
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Weitzman, David


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wellbeloved, James


Pavitt, Laurence
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilkins, W. A.


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Small, William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Price, William (Rugby)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Probert, Arthur
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Randall, Harry
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Winnick, David


Rankin, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rees, Merlyn
Swain, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Richard, Ivor
Symonds, J. B.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taverne, Dick



Roberts, Rt, Hn. Goronwy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. John McCann and Mr. Neil McBride.


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tinn, James

9.45 p.m.

Miss Mervyn Pike: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing county constituencies of Harborough and Melton, and for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Leicester, North-East, South-East, North-West and South-West, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—

(a) the County Constituency of Blaby consisting of:

The rural district of Blaby as altered by the Leicester Order 1966, and Lutterworth;
(b) the County Constituency of Harborough consisting of:

(i) the urban district of Market Harborough as altered by the East Midland Counties Order 1965, and the urban districts of Oadby and Wigston as altered by the Leicester Order 1966;
(ii) the rural district of Billesdon as altered by the Leicester Order 1966 and the rural district of Market Harborough as altered by the East Midland Counties Order 1965;
(c) the County Constituency of Melton consisting of:


(i) the urban district of Melton Mowbray;
(ii) the rural districts of Barrow-uponSoar as altered by the East Midland Counties Order 1965 and the Leicester Order 1966, and Melton and Belvoir as altered by the East Midland Counties Order 1965;
(d) the Borough Constituency of Leicester, East, consisting of:

The following wards of the county borough of Leicester as altered by The Leicester Order 1966, namely, Belgrave. Charnwood, Evington, Humberstone and Latimer;
(e) the Borough Constituency of Leicester, South, consisting of:

The following wards of the county borough of Leicester (as so altered) namely, Aylesbury, De Monfort, Knighton, Spinney Hill, The Castle and Wysliffe;
(f) the Borough Constituency of Leicester, West, consisting of:

The following wards of the county borough of Leicester (as so altered) namely, Newton, North Braunstone, St. Margaret's, The Abbey and Westcotes.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

The Chairman: With this Amendments we can take the following Amendments:

5
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing borough constituencies of Bristol Central, Bristol, North-East, and Bristol, North-West, Bristol, South, Bristol, South-East, Bristol, West, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of those constituencies there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—



(a) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, North-East, consisting of:


10
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol as altered by The Bristol Order 1966, namely, Easton, Eastville, Hillfields, St. Paul, St. Philip and Jacob and Stapleton;



(b) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, North-West, consisting of:



The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered) namely, Avon, Henbury, Horfield, Southmead and Westbury-on-Trym;


15
(c) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, South, consisting of:



The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered) namely, Bedminster, Bishopsworth, Hengrove, Somerset and Southville;



(d) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, South-East, consisting of:


20
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered) namely, Brislington, Knowle, St. George East, St. George West, Stockwood and Windmill Hill;



(e) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, West, consisting of:



The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered) namely, Bishopston, Cabot, Clifton, District, Durdham and Rcdland.


25
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House, of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

with the Amendments thereto, in line 5, after 'West ', insert:
'the County Constituency of Gloucestershire, South ',

and in line 24, at end insert—
(f) the County Constituency of Gloucestershire, South consisting of the rural districts of Sodbury and Thornbury;
(g) the County Constituency of Kings-wood, consisting of the urban districts of Kingswood and Mangotsfield and the rural district of Warmley.

No. 15, in line 33, at end insert—
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing county constituency of Wirral, and accordingly for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjourning constituencies of Bebington and Birkenhead there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely

(a) the County Constituency of Wirral, consisting of:

(i) The following wards of the county borough of Birkenhead, namely, Prenton and Upton;
(ii) the urban districts of Hoylake, Neston and Wirral.
(b) the Borough Constituency of Bebington and Ellesmere Port, consisting of:

No. 13, in page 2, line 33, at end insert:

The boroughs of Bebington and Ellesmere Port as altered by The River Gowy (Local Boundaries) Order 1962 and The County of Chester (Borough of Ellesmere Port) Confirmation Order 1967.
) the Borough Constituency of Birkenhead, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Birkcnhead, namely, Argyle, Bebington, Cathcart, Claughton, Cleveland, Clifton, Devonshire, Egerton, Gil-brook, Grange, Holt, Mersey, Oxton and St. James.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 18, in line 33, at end insert—
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing County Constituency of Kettering, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of South Northants. Wellingborough and Northampton there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—



(a) the County Constituency of Daventry, consisting of:

(i) The borough of Brackley and Daventry;
(ii) the rural districts of Brackley, Brix-worth as altered by the East Midland Counties Order 1965, and the Northampton Order 1965, Daventry, Northampton as altered by the Northampton Order 1965 and Towcester;
(b) the County Constituency of Kettering, consisting of:

(i) The borough of Kettering;
(ii) the urban districts of Burton Latimer, Corby, Desborough and Rothwell;
(iii) the rural district of Kettering;
(c) the County Constituency of Wellingborough, consisting of:
(i) The borough of Higham Ferrers;
(ii) the urban districts of Irthlingborough, Oundle, Raunds, Rushden as altered by the East Midlands Counties Order 1965 and Wellingborough;
(iii) the rural districts of Oundle and Trapston as altered by the Huntingdon Peterborough Order 1964 and the East Midland Counties Order 1965 and Wellingborough as altered by the East Midland Counties Order 1965;
(d) the Borough Constituency of Northampton, North, consisting of:

The following wards as altered by the County Borough of Northampton (Wards) Order 1965 of the county borough of Northampton, namely, Abington, Dallington, Kingsthorpe, Park, St. David and St. George;
(e) the Borough Constituency of Northampton, South, consisting of:

The following wards of the county borough of Northampton, namely, Castle, Delapre, Duston, St. Crispin, South and Weston.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 19, in line 33, at end insert—
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing County Constituency of Wokingham, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Newbury and Reading there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—

(a) the County Constituency of Newbury, consisting of:

(i) The borough of Newbury;

(ii) the rural districts of Bradfield, Hungerford and Newbury;
(b) the County Constituency of Reading, South, consisting of:

(i) The following wards of the county borough of Reading, namely, Christchurch, Park, Redlands and Whitley;
(ii) the following parishes in the rural district of Wokingham, namely, Aborfield and Newland, Barnham, Earley, Finchampstead, Shinfield, Sonning, Swallowfield, Winnersh and Woodley and Sandford;
(c) the County Constituency of Woking-ham, consisting of:

(i) The borough of Wokingham;
(ii) the rural district of Easthampstead and the following parishes in the rural district of Wokingham, namely, Remenham, Ruscombe, St. Nicholas Hurst, Twyford. Wargrave and Wokingham Without;
(d) the Borough Constituency of Reading, North, consisting of:

The following wards of the county borough of Reading, namely, Abbey, Battle, Castle, Caversham, Katesgrove, Minster, Norcot, Thames and Tilehurst.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House, of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 20, in line 33, at end insert—
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing constituencies of Arundel and Shoreham, and Horsham, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of those constituencies and the adjoining constituency of Chichester there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—

(a) the County Constituency of Arundel, consisting of:

(i) The borough of Arundel;
(ii) the urban districts of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton;
(iii) the following parishes in the rural district of Chichester, namely, Aldingbourne, Barnham, Bersted, Climping, Eastergate, Ford, Madehurst, Middletonon-Sea, Pagham, Slindon, Tortingdon, Walberton and Yaptor and the following parishes in the rural district of Worthing, namely, Angmering, Burpham, Clapham, East Preston, Ferring, Lyminster, Kingston, Patching, Poling, Rustington, South Stoke and Warningcamp.


(b) the County Constituency of Chichester, consisting of:

(i) The borough of Chichester;
(ii) the rural districts of Midhurst and Petworth and the following parishes in the rural district of Chichester, namely, Apple-dram, Birdham, Bosham, Boxgrove, Chid-ham, Compton, Donnington, Earnley, Eartham, East Dean, East Wittering, Funtington, Hunston, Lavant, Marden, North Mundham, Oving, Selsey, Sidlesham, Singleton, Southbourne as constituted by The County of West Sussex (Parish of Southbourne) Confirmation Order 1968, Stoughton, Tangmere, Upwaltham, West-bourne, West Dean, Westhampnett, West Itchenor, West Thorney and West Wittering.
(c) the County Constituency of Horsham and Crawley, consisting of:

(i) The urban districts of Crawley and Horsham;
(ii) the rural district of Horsham.
(d) the County Constituency of Shoreham, consisting of:

(i) The urban districts of Shoreham-by-Sea and Southwick;
(ii) the rural district of Chanctonbury and the following parishes in the rural district of Worthing, namely, Coombes, Findon, Houghton, Lancing and Sompting.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House, of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 21, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing Borough constituency of Cheadle, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Knutsford and Macclesfield there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the County Constituency of Knutsford, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Bowdon, Hale and Knutsford;
(ii) the rural districts of Bucklow and Congleton as altered by The West Midland Counties Order 1965.
(b) the County Constituency of Macclesfield, consisting of:
(i) The boroughs of Congleton and Macclesfield;
(ii) the urban districts of Alderley Edge and Bollington;
(iii) the rural districts of Disley and Macclesfield.

(c) the Borough Constituency of Cheadle, consisting of:

The urban districts of Cheadle and Gatley and Wilmslow.
(d) the Borough Constituency of Hazel Grove, consisting of:

The urban districts of Bredbury and Romiley, Hazel Grove and Bramhall and Marple.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House, of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 22, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing constituencies of Huyton and Ormskirk, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of those constituencies and the adjoining constituencies of Crosby, Ince and Bootle there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the County Constituency of Huyton, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Huyton-withRoby and Prescot;
(ii) the following parishes in the rural district of Whiston, namely, Eccleston, Knowsley and Windle;
(b) the Borough Constituency of Ince, consisting of:

The urban districts of Abram and Ashton-in-Makerfield as altered by the Declaration of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, dated 22nd August 1957, Billinge-and-Winstanley, Ince-inMakerfield, Orrell and Skelmersdale and Holland as constituted by the County of Lancaster (Skelmersdale Holland Urban District) Order 1968;
(c) the Borough Constituency of Bootle, consisting of:
(i) The county borough of Bootle as altered by the Bootle (Extension) Order 1968;
(ii) the urban district of Litherland;
(d) the Borough Constituency of Crosby, consisting of:

(i) The Borough of Crosby;
(ii) the urban district of Formby;
(iii) the following parishes in the rural district of West Lancashire as altered by the Bootle (Extension) Order 1968, namely, Altcar, Ince, Blundell, Maghull, Sefton (except detached part) and Thornton;
(e) the County Constituency of Ormskirk, consisting of:


(i) The urban districts of Kirkby, Ormskirk as altered by the County of Lancaster (Skelmersdale and Holland Urban District) Order 1968 and Rainford;
(ii) the following parishes in the rural district of West Lancashire as altered by the Bootle (Extension) Order 1968, namely, Aintree, Aughaon, Bickerstaffe, Bispham, Downholland, Halsall, Hesketh-withBecconsall, Lydiate, Melling, Netherton, North Meals, Rufford, Scarisbrook, Sefton (detached part), Simonswood and Tarleton.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House, of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 24, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing county constituency of South Bedfordshire, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituency of Luton there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the County Constituency of South Bedfordshire, consisting of:
(i) The borough of Dunstable as altered by The Luton Order 1963;
(ii) the urban district of LeightonLinslade) Order 1965;
(iii) the rural district of Luton as altered by The Luton Order 1963 and The East Midland Counties Order 1965.
(b) the Borough Constituency of Luton East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Luton as constituted by The Luton Order 1963 and altered by The County Borough of Luton (Wards) Order 1965, namely, Central, Crawley, High Town, South, Stopsley and Wardown.
(c) the Borough Constituency of Luton West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Luton (as so altered) namely, Dallow, Icknield, Leagrave, Lewsey, Limbury and Sundon Park.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House, of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 26, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report

submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing borough constituencies of Portsmouth, Langstone and Gosport and Fareham, and accordingly for the purpose of parliamentary elections, in lieu of those constituencies and the adjoining constituencies of Portsmouth South, Portsmouth West there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the Borough Constituency of Fareham, consisting of:
The urban district of Fareham.
(b) the Borough Constituency of Gosport, consisting of:
The borough of Gosport.
(c) the Borough Constituency of Havant and Waterloo, consisting of:
The urban district of Havant and Waterloo as altered by The Hampshire (Havant and Waterloo Urban District) Confirmation Order 1964.
(d) the Borough Constituency of Portsmouth North, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Portsmouth, namely, Cosham, Farlington, Meredith, Nelson, North End, Paulsgrove, Portsea and St. Mary and Guildhall.
(e) the Borough Constituency of Portsmouth South, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Portsmouth as altered by The Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order 1967; namely, Buckland, Fratton, Havelock, Highland, Kingston, St. Jude (including Spitbank Fort and Horse Sand Fort) St. Simon and St. Thomas.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 27, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing constituencies of Birmingham, All Saints, Birmingham, Ladywood, Birmingham, Northfield, Sutton Coldfield, and Coventry East, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of those constituencies, and the adjoining constituencies of Meriden, Solihull, Stratford.. Warwick and Leamington, Birmingham Aston, Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, Hall Green, Birmingham, Handsworth, Birmingham, Sparkhrook, Birmingham, Perry Barr, Birmingham, Selly Oak, Birmingham, Small Heath, Birmingham, Stechford, Birmingham, Yardley, Coventry,


North and Coventry, South, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the County Constituency of Meriden, consisting of:
The rural districts of Atherstone as altered by The Staffordshire and Warwickshire (Tamworth) Order 1964 and The West Midland Counties Order 1965 and Meriden as altered by The Solihull Order 1963, The Staffordshire and Warwickshire (Tamworth) Order 1964, The Coventry Order 1965 and The West Midlands Order 1965;
(b) the County Constituency of Stratfordon-Avon, consisting of:
(i) the borough of Stratford-on-Avon;
(ii) the rural districts of Alcester as altered by The West Midland Counties Order 1965, Shipston on Stour, Southam and Stratford-on-Avon as altered by The Solihull Order 1963;
(c) the County Constituency of Warwick and Leamington, consisting of:
(i) the boroughs of Royal Leamington Spa and Warwick;
(ii) the urban district of Kenilworth;
(iii) the rural district of Warwick as altered by The Solihull Order 1963 and The Coventry Order 1965;
(d) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Edgbaston, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Birmingham (as altered by The City of Birmingham (Wards) Order 1961, The Solihull Order 1963 and The West Midlands Order 1965), namely, Deritend, Edgbaston, Harborne and Quinton.
(e) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Erdington, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely, Erdington, Gravelly Hill and Stockland Green;
(f) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely, Billesley, Brandwood and Hall Green;
(g) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Handsworth, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely, Aston, Handsworth and Sandwell;
(h) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely, All Saints, Ladywood, Rotton Park and Soho;
(i) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Northfield, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham,

namely, Longbridge, Northfield and Weoley;
(j) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Perry Barr, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely, Kingstanding, Oscott and Perry Barr;
(k) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Selly Oak, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely, King's Norton, Moseley and Selly Oak;
(l) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Small Heath, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely, Duddeston, Newtown, Salticy and Small Heath;
(m) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Sparkbrook, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely, Fox Hollies, Sparkbrook and Sparkhill;
(n) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Stechford, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely, Shard End, Stechford and Washwood Heath;
(o) the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Yardley, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Birmingham, namely Acock's Green, Sheldon and Yardley;
(p) the Borough Constituency of Coventry. North-East, consisting of:
The following wards (as altered by The Coventry Order 1965) of the county borough of Coventry, namely, Foleshill, Henley, Longford, Upper Stoke and Wyken.
(q) the Borough Constituency of Coventry, North West, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Coventry, namely, Bablake, Holbrook, Radford and Sher-bourne;
(r) the Borough Constituency of Coventry, South East, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Coventry, namely, Binley and Willenhall, Godiva, Lower Stoke and St. Michael's;
(s) the Borough Constituency of Coventry, South West, consisting of:
The following wards (as so altered) of the county borough of Coventry, namely. Cheylesmore, Earlsdon, Westwood. Whoberley and Woodlands;
(t) the Borough Constituency of Solihull, consisting of:
The county borough of Solihull as constituted by The Solihull Order 1963;


(u) the Borough Constituency of Sutton Coldfield, consisting of:
The borough of Sutton Coldfield as altered by The West Midlands Order 1965.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 28, in line 33, at end insert—
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing county constituency of North East Derbyshire, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Sheffield, Attercliffe. Sheffield, Brightside, Sheffield, Hallam, Sheffield, Heeley, Sheffield, Hillsborough, Sheffield, Park, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the Borough Constituency of Sheffield, Attercliffe, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Sheffield as altered by The Sheffield Order 1967, namely, Attercliffe, Birley, Darnall, Handsworth and Mosborough.
(b) the Borough Constituency of Sheffield, Brightside, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Sheffield (as so altered) namely, Brightside, Firth Park, Nether Shire and Southey Green.
(c) the Borough Constituency of Sheffield, Hallam, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Sheffield (as so altered) namely, Broomhill, Dore, Ecclesall, Hallam and Nether Edge.
(d) the Borough Constituency of Sheffield, Heeley, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Sheffield (as so altered) namely, Beauchief, Gleadless, Heeley and Intake.
(e) the Borough Constituency of Sheffield, Hillsborough, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Sheffield (as so altered) namely, Hillsborough, Nether Thorpe, Owlerton and Walkley.
(f) the Borough Constituency of Sheffield, Park, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Sheffield (as so altered) namely, Burngreave, Castle, Manor, Park and Sharrow.
(g) the County Constituency of North East Derbyshire, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Clay Cross and Dronfield as altered by The Sheffield Order 1967;

(ii) the rural district of Chesterfield except the parish of Brimington as altered by The Sheffield Order 1967.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 29, in line 33, at end insert—
(5) Nothwithstanding subsection (1) above the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing county constituency of Cleveland, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Richmond (Yorkshire), Scarborough and Whitby, Thirsk and Malton, Middlesbrough East, Middlesbrough West, Stockton-on-Tees, Easington, Sedgefield, Durham, Bishop Auckland, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the County Constituency of Cleveland and Whitby, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Guisborough as altered by The Teesside Order 1967, Loftus, Sal tburn and Marske-by-the-Sea as altered by The Teesside Order 1967, Skelton and Brotton and Whitby;
(ii) the rural district of Whitby.
(b) the County Constituency of Richmond (Yorks), consisting of:
(i) The borough of Richmond;
(ii) the urban district of Northallerton;
(iii) the rural districts of Aysgarth, Croft as altered by The Darlington Order 1967, Leyburn, Masham, Northallerton, Reeth, Richmond, Stratforth and Stokesley as altered by the Teesside Order 1967.
(c) the County Constituency of Scarborough, consisting of:
(i) The borough of Scarborough;
(ii) the urban districts of Pickering and Scalby;
(iii) the rural districts of Pickering and Scarborough.
(d) the County Constituency of Thirsk and Malton, consisting of:
(i) The urban district of Malton;
(ii) the rural district cf Bedale, Easingwold, Flaxton (as altered by The York Order 1967), Helmsley, Kirkbymoorside, Malton, Thirsk and Wath.
(e) the Borough Constituency of Teesside, Middlesbrough, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Teesside as constituted by The Teesside Order 1967, namely, Berwick Hills, Marton, North Orrnesby, St. Hilda's, Thorntree and Tollesby.


(f) the Borough Constituency of Teesside, Redcar, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Teesside (as so constituted) namely, Coatham, Eston Grange, Kirkleatham, Ormesby, Redcar and South Bank;
(g) the Borough Constituency of Teesside, Stockton, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Teesside (as so constituted) namely, Billingham East, Billingham West, Grange-field, Hartburn, Mile House, North End, Norton and Stockton South;
(h) Borough Constituency of Teesside, Thornaby, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Teesside (as so constituted) namely, Acklam, Ayresome, Gresham, Linthorpe, Thornaby East and Thornaby West;
(i) the County Constituency of Bishop Auckland, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Barnard Castle, Bishop Auckland and Shildon;
(ii) the rural district of Barnard Castle;
(iii) the rural district of Darlington;
(j) the County Constituency of Durham, consisting of:
(i) the borough of Durham;
(ii) the urban districts of Hetton and Spennymore;
(iii) the rural district of Durham;
(iv) the rural district of Sedgefield;
(k) the County Constituency of Easington, consisting of:
(i) The rural district of Easington;
(ii) the rural district of Stockton;
(l) the Borough Constituency of Hartlepool, consisting of:
The county borough of Hartlepool as constituted by The Hartlepool Order 1966.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect t'ne constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 30, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (I) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing constituency of Leek, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Stoke on Trent, Central, Stoke on Trent, North, Stoke on Trent, South, Stafford and Stone, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the Borough Constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme, consisting of:

(i) The borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme as altered by The Stoke-on-Trent Order 1964;
(ii) the rural district of Newcastle-under-Lyme as altered by The West Midland Counties Order 1965.
(b) the Borough Constituency of Stoke on-Trent Central, consisting of:
Wards Nos. 9 to 16 of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent as altered by The City of Stoke-on-Trent (Wards) Order 1965.
(c) the Borough Constituency of Stoke on-Trent North, consisting of:
Wards No. 1 to 8 (as so altered) of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent.
(d) the Borough Constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, South, consisting of:
Wards Nos. 17 to 24 (as so altered) of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent.
(e) the County Constituency of Stafford and Stone, consisting of:
(i) The borough of Stafford;
(ii) the urban district of Stone;
(iii) the rural districts of Stafford as altered by The West Midland Counties Order 1965, and Stone as altered by The Stoke-on-Trent Order 1964.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 32, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing constituencies of Brierley Hill and Cannock, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of those constituencies and the adjoining constituencies of Lichfield and Tamworth, Stafford and Stone, Bilston, Newcastle under Lyme, Rowley Regis and Tipton, Smethwick, Walsall, North, Walsall, South, Wednesbury, Dudley, West Bromwich, Oldham and Halesowen, Wolverhampton, North East, Wolverhampton, South West, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the Borough Constituency of Warley East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Warley as constituted by The West Midlands Order 1965, namely, Abbey, Bearwood, Brandhall, Bristnall, Sandwell, Soho, Uplands and Victoria.
(b) the Borough Constituency of Warley West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Warley (as so constituted)


namely Cradley Heath, Langley, Old Hill and Blackheath, Rounds Green, Rowley, St. Paul's and Tividale.
(c) the Borough Constituency of Halesowen and Stourbridge, consisting of:
The boroughs of Halesowen and Stourbridge as altered by The West Midlands Order 1965.
(d) the Borough Constituency of Walsall North, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Walsall as altered by The West Midlands Order 1965, namely, Bentley, Birchills, Blakenall, Bloxwich East, Bloxwich West, Leamore, Willenhall North and Willenhall South;
(e) the Borough Constituency of Walsall South, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Walsall (as so altered) namely, Darlaston North, Darlaston South. Hatherton, Paddock, Palfrey, Pleck and St. Matthew's;
(f) the Borough Constituency of West Bromwich East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of West Bromwich as altered by The West Midlands Order 1965, namely, Charlemont, Friar Park, Great Barr, Hateley Heath, Newton, Sandwell and Tantany;
(g) the Borough Constituency of West Bromwich West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of West Bromwich (as so altered) namely, Greets Green, Hill Top, Horseley Heath, Lyng Market, Tibbington, Tipton Green and Wood Green;
(h) the Borough Constituency of Wolverhampton North East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Wolverhampton as altered by The West Midlands Order 1965, namely, Bushbury. Eastfield, Low Hill. Oxley, Wednesfield Heath, Wednesfield North and Wednesfield South;
(i) the Borough Constituency of Wolverhampton South East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Wolverhampton (as so altered) namely, Bilston East, Bilston North, Blakenhall. Ettingshall, Parkfield and Spring Vale;
(j) the Borough Constituency of Wolverhampton South West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Wolverhampton (as so altered) namely, Graiseley, Merry Hill, Park, Penn, St. Peter's, Tettenhall Regis and Tettenhall Wightwick;
(k) the County Constituency of Cannock, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Cannock as altered by The West Midlands Order 1965, and Rugeley;
(ii) the following parish in the rural district of Lichfield as altered by The

West Midlands Order 1965, namely, Brindley Heath.
(l) the County Constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth, consisting of:
(i) The boroughs of Lichfield and Tamworth as altered by The Staffordshire and Warwickshire (farnworth) Order 1964;
(ii) the rural district of Lichfield as altered by The West Midlands Order 1965, except the parish of Brindley Heath;
(m) the County Constituency of South West Staffordshire, consisting of:
The rural districts of Cannock as altered by The West Midlands Order 1965 and the West Midlands Counties Order 1965, and Seisdon as altered by the West Midlands Order 1965;
(n) the Borough Constil uency of AldridgeBrownhills, consisting of:
The urban district of AldridgeBrownhills as constituted by The West Midlands Order 1965;
(o) The Borough Constituency of Dudley East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Dudley as altered by The West Midlands Order 1965, namely. Castle, Coseley East. Coseley West, Netherton and Woodside. Priory, St. Andrew's St. James's and St. Thomas's;
(p) the Borough Constituency of Dudley West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Dudley (as so altered) namely, Brieley Hill, Brockmoor and Pensnett, Gornall, Kingswinford and Wall Heath. Quarry Bank, Sedgley and Wordsley.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 33, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing county constituency of Basingstoke in order to bring into it only—
(i) the borough of Basingstoke;
(ii) the rural districts of Basingstoke and Kinsclere and Whitchurch and the following parishes in the rural district of Hartley Witney, namely Bramshill, Dogmersfield, Eversley, Greywell, Hartley Witney, Heck-field. Hook, Long Sutton, hIattingley. Odiham, Rotherwick, South Warnborough and Winchfield;
and altering the county constituencies of Aldershot and Winchester in accordance with the finding of the Boundary Commission in


so far as it affects the constituency of Basingstoke.

No. 60, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing borough constituencies of Leeds, East, Leeds, North-East, Leeds, North-West, Leeds, South, Leeds, South-East, Leeds, West, and accordingly for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of those constituencies there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds as altered by The City of Leeds (Wards) Order 1968, namely, Gipton, Halton, Osmondthorpe, Seacroft and Whinmoor;
((b) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, North-East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered), namely, Chapel Allerton, Harehills, Roundhay, Scott Hall and Talbot;
((c) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, North-West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered), namely, Cookridge, Headingley, Kirkstall, Moor-town and Weetwood;
((d) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, South, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered), namely, Bceston, East Hunslet, Holbeck, Middleton and West Hunslet;
((e) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, South-East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered), namely, Burley, Burmantofts, City, Richmond Hill and Woodhouse;
((f) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered), namely Armley, Bramley, Castleton, Stanningley and Wortley.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 68, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (I) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary

Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing constituency of Leeds, South-East, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Leeds, East, Leeds, North-East, Leeds, North-West, Leeds, South, and Leeds, West, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds as altered by the City of Leeds (Wards) Order 1968, namely, Gipton, Halton, Osmondthorpe, Seacroft and Whinmoor;
(b) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, North-East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered) namely, Chapel Allerton, Harehills, Roundhay, Scott Hall and Talbot;
(c) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, North-West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered) namely, Cookridge, Headingley, Kirkstall, Moor-town and Weetwood;
(d) the Borough Constituency of Leeds. South, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered) namely, Beeston, East Hunslet, Holbeck, Middleton and West Hunslet;
(e) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, South-East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered) namely, Burley, Burmantofts, City, Richmond Hill and Woodhouse;
(f) the Borough Constituency of Leeds, West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Leeds (as so altered) namely, Armley, Bramley, Castleton, Stanningley and Wortley.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 69, in line 33, at end insert—
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing borough constituencies of Manchester, Cheetham and Manchester, Exchange, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Manchester, Ardwick, Manchester, Moss Side, Manchester, Withington, Manchester, Wythenshawe, there


shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the Borough Constituency of Manchester, Wythenshawe, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Manchester, namely, Baguley, Benchill, Northenden and Woodhouse
Park.
(b) the Borough Constituency of Manchester, Ardwick, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Manchester, namely, Ardwick, Levenshulme, Longsight, Rusholme, St. Luke's and St. Mark's.
(c) the Borough Constituency of Manchester, Central, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Manchester, namely, Beswick, Chcetham, Collegiate Church, Harpurhey, Hugh Oldham, Miles Platting, New Cross and St. Peter's.
(d) the Borough Constituency of Manchester, Moss Side, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Manchester, namely, Alexandra Park, Alt Saints', Chorlton-cumHardy, Moss Side, East, Moss Side, West, and St. George's.
(e) the Borough Constituency of Manchester, Withington, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Manchester, namely, Barlow Moor, Burnage, Didsbury, Old Moat and Withington.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 70, in line 33, at end insert—
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing borough constituency of Bristol, Central and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Bristol, North-East, Bristol, North-West, Bristol, South, Bristol, South-East, Bristol, West, and South Gloucestershire there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the County Constituency of Kings-wood, consisting of:
(i) the urban district of Kingswood and Mangotsfield as altered by The Bristol Order 1966;
(ii) the rural district of Warmley as altered by The South Western Counties Order 1965.
(b) the County Constituency of South Gloucestershire, consisting of:

The rural districts of Sodbury and Thornbury as altered by The Bristol Order 1966.
(c) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, North-East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol as altered by The Bristol Order 1966, namely, Easton, Eastville, Hillfields, St. Paul, St. Philip and Jacob and Stapleton.
(d) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, North-West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered), namely, Avon, Henbury, Horfield, Southmead and Westbury-on-Trym.
(e) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, South consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered), namely, Bedminster, Bishopsworth, Hengrove, Somerset and Southville.
(f) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, South-East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered), namely, Brislington, Knowle, St. George East, St. George West, Stockwood and Windmill Hill.
(g) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered), namely, Bishopston, Cabot, Clifton, District, Durdham and Redland.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 71, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented as far as they alter or relate to the existing county constituency of Carlton, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Nottingham North, Ashfield, Nottingham Central, Rushcliffe, Nottingham West, Nottingham South, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the county constituency of Ashfield, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Hucknall, Kirkby in Ashfield and Sutton in Ashfield.
(ii) the following parishes in the rural district of Basford as altered by the East Midland Counties Order 1965, namely, Annesley, Felley and Selston.


(b) the County Constituency of Beeston, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Beeston and Stapleford and Eastwood;
(ii) the following parishes in the rural district of Basford as altered by The East Midland Counties Order 1965, namely, Awsworth, Brinsey, Cossall, Greasley, Kimberley, Nuthall, Strelley and Trowell.
(c) the County Constituency of Carlton, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Arnold and Carlton;
(ii) the following parishes in the rural district of Basford as altered by The East Midland Counties Order 1965, namely, Bestwood Park, Buxton Joyce, Calverton, Lambley, Linby, Newstead, Papplewick, Stoke Bardolph and Woodborough.
(d) the County Constituency of Rushcliffe, consisting of:
(i) The urban district of West Bridge-ford;
(ii) the rural district of Bingham as altered by The East Midland Counties Order 1965 and the following parishes in the rural district of Basford as altered by The East Midland Counties Order 1965, namely, Barton in Fabis, Bradmore, Bunny, Costock, East Leake, Gotham, Kingston on Soar, Normanton on Soar, Ratcliffe on Soar, Rempstonc, Ruddington, Stanford on Soar, Sutton Bonington, Thorpe in the Glebe, Thrumpton, West Leake, Willoughby on the Wolds and Wysall.
(e) the Borough Constituency of Nottingham, East, consisting of:
(i) The following wards of the county borough of Nottingham as altered by The City of Nottingham (Wards) Order 1967, namely, Bridge, Lenton, Manvers, Market, St. Ann's and Trent;
(ii) the detached part of Nottingham Administrative County, namely, the Shire Hall.
(f) the Borough Constituency of Nottingham North, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Nottingham (as so altered) namely, Byron, Forest, Mapperley, Portland, Radford and St. Albans.
(g) the Borough Constituency of Nottingham West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Nottingham (as so altered) namely, Abbey, Broxtowe, Clifton, Robin Hood, University and Wollaton.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 72, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing borough constituencies of Liverpool, Exchange, and Liverpool, Scotland, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of those constituencies and the adjoining constituencies of Liverpool, Edge Hill, Liverpool, Kirkdale, and Liverpool, Toxteth, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the Borough Constituency of Liverpool. Kirkdale, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Liverpool, namely, Anfield, Breckfield, Melrose, St. Domingo, Tuebrook and Westminster;
(b) the Borough Constituency of Liverpool, Toxteth, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Liverpool, namely, Arundel, Dingle, Granby, Princes Park and St. Michael's;
(c) the Borough Constituency of Liverpool, Edge Hill, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Liverpool, namely, Fairfield, Kensington, Low Hill, Picton and Smith-down;
(d) the Borough Constituency of Liverpool, Scotland, Exchange, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Liverpool, namely, Abercromby, Central, Everton, Netherfield, St. James, Sandhills and Vauxhall.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 73, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing borough constituency of Bradford, East, and accordingly, for the purposes of parliamentary elections, in lieu of that constituency and the adjoining constituencies of Bradford, North, Bradford, South, and Bradford, West, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely—
(a) the Borough Constituency of Bradford, North, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bradford as altered by the City of Bradford (Wards) Order 1967, namely, Bowling, Bolton, Bradford Moor,


Eceleshill, Idle, Laisterdyke and Undercliffe;
(b) the Borough Constituency of Bradford, South, consisting of:
(i) The following wards of the county borough of Bradford (as so altered), namely, Clayton, Great Horton, Odsal, Tong, Wibsey and Wyke;
(ii) the urban district of Quecnsbury and Shelt;
(c) the Borough Constituency of Bradford, West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bradford (as so altered), namely, Allerton, Heaton, Little Horton, Manningham, Thornton and University.
This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 79, in line 33, at end insert:
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the recommendations contained in the report submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 by the Boundary Commission for England shall be implemented so far as they alter or relate to the existing county constituencies of Cirencester and Tewkesbury, South Gloucestershire, Stroud and West Gloucestershire and the existing borough constituencies of Gloucester, Bristol Central, Bristol North East, Bristol North West, Bristol South, Bristol South East, Bristol West and Cheltenham, there shall be substituted the following constituencies, namely:—
(a) the County Constituency of Cirencester and Tewkesbury, consisting of:
(i) The borough of Tewkesbury as altered by The West Midland Counties Order 1965;
(ii) the urban district of Cirencester;
(iii) the rural districts of Cheltenham and North Cotswold as altered by The West Midlands Counties Order 1965, Cirencester and Northleach.
(b) the County Constituency of Kings-wood, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Kingswood and Mangotsfield as altered by The Bristol Order 1966;
(ii) the rural district of Warmley as altered by The South Western Counties Order 1965.
(c) the County Constituency of South Gloucestershire, consisting of:
The rural districts of Sodbury and Thornbury as altered by The Bristol Order 1966.
(d) the County Constituency of Stroud, consisting of:
(i) The urban districts of Nailsworth and Stroud;

(ii) the rural districts of Dursley, Stroud and Tetbury as altered by The South Western Counties Order 1965 and the following parishes in the rural district of Gloucester as altered by The West Midland Counties Order 1965 and The Gloucester Order 1966, namely, Arlingham, Brookthorpe-with-Whaddon, Eastinoton, Elmore, Frampton on Severn. Fretherne with Saul, Frocester, Harwicke, Harescombe, Haresfield, Longney, Moreton Valance, Quedgeley, Standish, Upton St. Leonards and Whitminster.
(e) the County Constituency of West Gloucestershire, consisting of:
The rural districts of East Dean as altered by the West Midlands Counties Order 1965. Lydney, Newent and West Dean as altered by the West Midland Counties Order 1965 and the following parishes in the rural district of Gloucester as altered by the West Midland Counties Order 1965 and the Gloucester Order 1966, namely, Ashleworth, Brockworth, Chaceley, Churchdown, Down Hatherley, Forthampton, Hasfield, Highnam, Hucclecote, Innsworth. Longford. Maisemorc, Minsterworth, Newnham, Norton, Sandhurst, Tirley, Twigwo-th and Westburyon-Severn;
(f) the Borough Constituency of Gloucester, consisting of:
The county borough of Gloucester as altered by the Gloucester Order 1966;
(g) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, North-East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol as altered by the Bristol Order 1966, namely, Easton, Eastville, Hillfields, St. Paul. St. Philip and Jacob and Stapleton;
(h) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, North-West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as;o altered), namely. Avon, Henbury, Horfield, Southmead and Westbury-on-Trym;
(i) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, South, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered), namely, Bedminster, Bishopsworth, Hengrove, Somerset and Southville;
(j) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, South-East, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered), namely, Brislington, Knowle, St. George East, St. George West, Stockwood and Windmill Hill;
(k) the Borough Constituency of Bristol, West, consisting of:
The following wards of the county borough of Bristol (as so altered), namely, Bishopston, Cabot, Clifton, District, Durdham and Redland
(l) the Borough Constituency of Cheltenham, consisting of:
(i) The borough of Cheltenham;
(ii) the urban district of Charlton Kings.


This subsection shall come into force at the expiration of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, but its coming into force shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by Her Majesty summoning a new Parliament, nor affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

No. 78, in Schedule 2, page 16, leave out line 44.

No. 58, in the Title, line 9, leave out division 'and insert alteration'.

No. 59, in the Title, line 10, leave out 'abnormally large electorates' and insert electorates of abnormal size'.

No. 66, in Clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out 100,000 'and insert 95,000'.

No. 67, in page 4, line 16, leave out constituency 'and insert constituencies'.

No. 65, in Schedule 2, page 16, line 37, at end insert:
' The Constituency of Huyton.
The Constituency of Harborough.
The Constituency of Wokingham'.
and New Clause 1—Redistribution of constituencies having abnormally small electorates—
(1) The Boundary Commission for England shall forthwith take into consideration the constituencies named in Schedule 3 to this Act (being the existing constituencies which have an electorate of less than 30,000 according to the register of electors published in February 1969) and shall as soon as may be submit to the Secretary of State reports showing the constituencies to which the constituencies named in the Schedule shall he added, either in whole or in part, so that they may cease to exist.
(2) Paragraphs 3 to 5 of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Redistribution of Seats Act, together with section 4 of the 1958 Act (which relate to the proceedings of a Boundary Commission in preparing a report under the Redistribution of Seats Act), and sections 2(5) and 3 of the Redistribution of Seats Act (which relate to the contents of and proceedings subsequent to a report of a Boundary Commission under that Act), shall apply in relation to a report under this section as they apply in relation to a report under that Act.
and the new Schedule—Constituencies to be abolished under section (Redistribution of constituencies having abnormally small electorates)—
1. The Constituency of Manchester, Exchange.
2. The Constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood.
3. The Constituency of Leeds, South-East.

Miss Pike: I shall not attempt to sketch in the general principle behind this series of Amendments. The Amendment that I

have moved, covering my constituency of Melton, among others, is really a paving Amendment. In speaking about Melton I am speaking of the problems facing most of us at this time. I was amused over the weekend to hear that several Leicester and Leicestershire Members on the benches opposite had been busy looking up reports of what I had said about the Boundary Commission's recommendations in respect of my constituency. I am sure that they had a good time, because I do not like those recommendations. They will take away some of my best friends and supporters. They will take away the most beautiful part of my constituency. If I had been given the job of re-drawing my constituency boundaries I could have made it far more convenient to myself in that I could have ensured far more support than these recommendations will give me.
It happens that I live near the part of my constituency that I am losing. Every time I travel between Westminster and my constituency I have to go through that part, so it is most convenient. Nevertheless, when the recommendations came out we did not put forward any formal objections to them because, much as we dislike losing part of our constituencies and the disruption caused thereby, we recognised that the recommendations were in the best interests of Leicester and Leicestershire as a whole. There may be arguments as to what should be done in Leicester City, but I am certain that in respect of Leicestershire the recommendations are in the best interests of the electorate, even if they are not convenient to me.
I am trying to draw attention to the problems caused by the proposal not to redistribute these seats. In giving the example of Melton I am truly reflecting the problems that we are facing. Melton has not been redistributed since I was a Member, but in that time it has completely changed in character. It is now two separate constituencies. There is the county constituency, consisting of the rural district of Billesdon, the rural district of Melton and part of the rural district of Barrow-upon-Soar, with an electorate of 40,000 and all the characteristics and problems of a county constituency, but there is also the urban constituency, with over 40,000 urban electors, in the urban district of Melton


and Barrow-upon-Soar, with all the problems and anxieties of an urban constituency.
This, in itself, means that the electors of Melton are to some extent disadvantaged, in that it is humanly impossible for one Member to serve the whole constituency in the way that most of us would wish. I have spent four hours in the Library trying to do my holiday task. In 21 days I try to visit every village in my constituency. My object is to spend between 20 minutes and half an hour in each. That is impossible in 21 days. That was leaving out the whole of Birstall, Thurmaston, Syston, and so on. From the point of view of the work in the constituency and the convenience of the electors we did not put forward any formal objections to the redistribution in this instance.
I put forward the need for this Amendment with great sincerity. The electorate of Melton is small compared with many other electorates. It is approaching 85,000, and it is growing at about 3,000 a year. But it is not only the rate of growth that matters; it is the character of the electors who are coming in. A great many young married people are coming into my constituency, buying houses, with all the attendant extra problems for a constituency Member who is trying to do her work properly. These young people have many problems, not only in their own lives. Often, they leave parents in other parts of the country, so the rate of work is increased because of the make-up of these people.
Unless my constituency is redistributed in the next few years, it will be an almost intolerable burden both upon me and upon those people who are trying to see that my constituents are properly represented in this House. But, of course, they are told that we must wait for the local boundary revision, because that would mean a tremendous upheaval. I do not know what the revision will be in my part of the country. If the present recommendations are carried out, there will not be much disruption, but, in any case, ever since I have been the Member for Melton, people from Leicester City in my constituency have voted for me—people paying rates in Leicester but still in my constituency.
I have had this disruption of boundaries in all my time as a Member,

and I not have found it any more of a disadvantage than any of the other local government problems which I have, with four separate local authorities to deal with. So, in our part of the country, it is no excuse to say that boundary revision will be a disruptive element. We have that already, and can live with it: what we cannot live with is the rate of numbers.
I have spent most of my time talking about the needs of my constituents and the duties of a constituency Member, but there is the overriding principle that people must have the right to have their vote properly represented in Parliament. It is a nonsence that in Melton 85,000 people should be represented by one Member, whereas the next-door constituency has almost fewer people in it than the uban district of Barrow-on-Soar, which is only a small part of my constituency.
In moving the Amendment and concentrating on the example of my constituency, I am demonstrating not only the great injustice which is being done on the constitutional principle of people being unable to exercise their votes in a just way, but also the injustice of having these over-large constituencies completely changing in character and making it very difficult for these people to be properly represented.

Mr. Sharpies: Perhaps I might deal at this point with the generality of these Amendments. In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) illustrated the difficulties into which the Committee has been put by the limitation on time for discussions. An enormous number of questions arise affecting individual constituencies.
Because of the shortage of time, we have grouped together 31 Amendments covering I do not know how many different constituencies. But this group covers the constituencies in England outside the periphery of London and the London area. We hope that there will be time, before the guillotine falls, for a debate on the next group, covering London and the London area. Given the very large number of constituencies being discussed, even in this group, it will be virtually impossible to have a debate in which full rein can be given to the problems facing individual constituencies. I am sure that many of my


hon. Friends will wish to catch your eye in the next few hours, Mr. Irving, to make points affecting their constituencies.
I understand that it is your intention, Mr. Irving, that we should be allowed Divisions on several Amendments. The first is that moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton. The second is Amendment No. 22, which covers the important constituency of Huyton—without which it is reasonable to say, the necessity for the Bill would not have arisen.

The Chairman: Order. I agreed that there should be four Divisions—on Amendments Nos. 22, 27, 68 and 70. But these can take place only if the Question More the Committee has been disposed of before the Guillotine falls.

Mr. Sharpies: I understand that, Mr. Irving, and I am grateful to you for pointing it out.
We hope for Divisions also on Amendment No. 27, which covers Birmingham and the Birmingham complex, including the constituencies of Meriden and Lady-wood; on Amendment No. 68, which covers the area of Leeds, on which some of my hon. Friends will no doubt comment; and on Amendment No. 70, which covers the Bristol area. I hope that the fact that we are allowed to divide only on those four Amendments will not inhibit any of my hon. Friends from speaking about the constituencies which are covered by Amendments which we are discussing at the same time.
Only a short time was allowed between Second Reading and Committee stage. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary of State will be able to point to drafting errors in the large number of Amendments put down, but I hope that the Government spokesman will not make too much of that. It is easy, with all the resources of a great Department of State behind one, to pick holes in a large number of complex Amendments put down by the Opposition. I know that there are certain consequential Amendments which have not been put down. There should have been an Amendment put down to Clause 3. Had we had time to go through the Amendments sufficiently carefully they would have been put right.
But that in no way invalidates the general principle governing the Amendments. Wherever possible we have implemented recommendations of the Boundary Commission where they affected constituencies having electorates in 1969 of over 80,000 or under 40,000 and where redistribution was recommended by the Boundary Commission. That covers 40 constituencies. Certain consequential Amendments have to be made to other constituencies which would be affected by the subdivision of these 40 constituencies which are either too large or too small.
It may be said that the Boundary Commission recommended constituencies which would have an electorate of over 80,000 on the 1969 figures. The constituencies of Newton, Rother Valley, Brigg, Scunthorpe, Wallsend and Ipswich all come in this category. Specific reasons were given in the recommendations why each of these cases should be considered specially. For example—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting, at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McBride.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (NO. 2) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Sharpies: I was explaining why the Boundary Commission had recommended in some cases constituencies of more than 80,000. On page 47 of the Report we read in respect of Newton:
 We felt that it would be undesirable to embark upon the far-reaching redistribution that would be necessary to achieve a reduction of one further seat in advance of any changes in local government boundaries.


The Commission did not say the same about the constituency of Huyton. In that case it stated:
 We considered that the existing Huyton county constituency … could not be left unchanged …".
It also recommended in some cases, and gave the reasons in each case, why there should be constituencies of fewer than 40,000. For example, the Commission said of Northumberland:
 We according proposed no change in the existing Parliamentary constituencies in Northumberland, subject to a further review of the situation when the pattern of local government had been settled.
It is clear that, in recommending constituencies of more than 80,000 or fewer than 40,000 the Commission was fully able to take into account the possible effects that the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations might have later.
The Government may argue that we have taken the wrong limits, that we have drawn the line wrongly in adopting the figures of 80,000 and 40,000. If they take that view they will not be criticising us, because the Boundary Commission adopted these limits as the criteria within which to work. We have taken exactly the same criteria in framing this series of Amendments.
Many of my hon. Friends would like to argue each constituency on its merits, but that is impossible in view of the time allowed for this debate. Time is needed to argue each case coherently, let alone the time needed if we are to receive a coherent reply from the Government on each issue. We are also faced with the difficulty that there is to be no Report stage for the Bill. This means that, however cogently our arguments may be adduced, the Government will not accept our proposals. We shall therefore be left at the end of the debate with the only sanction open to us—to divide upon each of these Amendments on which it is open to us to divide the Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: I have been chided for not rising early enough to speak in these debates, and it may be convenient to the Committee if I say some preliminary words about my general attitude to the Amendments at the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a long debate.
The hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike), whom we have known and re-

spected for many years, put up what was undoubtedly a good case for having redistribution as is recommended for her constituency. I say at once that I do not know of anything which would prevent me from accepting Amendments if I believed that they were justified. Certainly, I am under no mandate to refuse to accept Amendments. However, having been through all these carefully, I think that to accept Amendments would probably create more difficulties than it would solve. I want it to be clear, however, that, although I cannot see any Amendment which would be acceptable, that does not prevent me from listening to the arguments if hon. Members are convincing.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) tried to turn the barb a little by saying that he was sure that I would talk about drafting errors. He said that no one who did not have the resources of a great Department at his disposal could be expected to draft Amendments without drafting errors. How well I know that! I tried to do it for 13 years. But these are more than drafting errors. Both right hon. and learned Gentlemen have tried to do redistribution, and to do that maps, among other things, are needed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boundary Commissioners."] I absolutely agree. Hon. Members come to my point with a quickness and percipience which I can hardly hope to emulate. It cannot be done from the Opposition Front Bench., and one needs Boundary Commissioners. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members are not trying to argue the principle of the Bill again, for we have settled that already.

Mr. John Peyton: The Home Secretary has.

Mr. Callaghan: No, the House has, and it is time that the hon. Gentleman realised that he cannot always carry the House with him.
The point about a number of the Amendments, I regret to say, is that they have ragged edges. Their general impact is that in some cases constituents are included in two constituencies while in others they are left out of any constituency.
This has arisen because local government boundaries have been adjusted since


the 1954 Boundary Commission. The general principle upon which the Opposition have proceeded, as I understand, having looked carefully through the Amendments, is that they have taken the new local government boundaries and applied the Boundary Commissioners' recommendations to those boundaries. That is fine as far as it goes, but it neglects the fact that the Commissioners could not neglect, that a number of old local government boundaries have not been incorporated in the new constituencies.
By taking an additional bite at another cherry, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has included a group of electors in his new group of constituencies who are still included in the old group of constituencies because he has not taken them out of those by making the necessary adjustments. Conversely, where the size of a local government area has been diminished since 1954, he has now taken the new local government area—

Sir D. Glover: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave me alone, for this is an intricate argument; I hope that he is trying to understand it.

Sir D. Glover: I am.

Mr. Callaghan: This is the case against accepting the Amendments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken a new local government area and applied the Boundary Commissioners' results to it and thought that that was bound to give the right answer. What it neglects is that there may well be an area which was in the local government area and is now excluded by this process, with the consequence that those constituents are neither in the hon. Gentleman's batch of constituencies nor in the batch recommended by the Boundary Commission. It is not a very big problem, but it affects several thousand people over a large number of areas. We are not talking about the drafting of Amendments. This is one of the technical difficulties of trying to do a boundary redistribution in Committee. It cannot be done.
According to the best estimates that have been made for me, the effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be to alter 147 constituencies outside Greater London. The Amendments would give

effect to 138 of the 209 major changes proposed by the Commission outside Greater London and to nine of the 63 minor changes. It would leave out a substantial number of other constituencies in which this ripple effect is felt and could be met only by having other Amendments, which, in turn, would prompt even smaller fleas, upon their backs, to bite them. This is the reason why the Government have put the proposal in this way. We either have to take a clear set of boundaries, such as the Greater London area—

Mr. Peyton: Really.

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Gentleman says "really", in that scornful fashion, he cannot have been following the argument.
We have to take a clear group of boundaries such as the Greater London area, which has been settled, is fixed and is known and which can be taken as a whole, and even then when we wanted to put those into effect, it has been necessary to deal with what I call the "straddle" constituencies—that is, the three or four partly in Greater London, partly outside, and which if we did not take this step in the Schedule to the Bill, would be left out altogether. We either have to do that, or to leave it alone. I cannot see on any just basis that it would be possible to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Peyton: Just?

Mr. Callaghan: Just as between one constituency and another. The hon. Gentleman may not understand the term.

Mr. Peyton: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has interrupted me twice from a sedentary position. He can make his own speech later, and I have no doubt that it will be in his usual offensive terms and that I shall be entirely unmoved by it—unless it is rational, and at the moment I regret to say that the Amendment being moved is not rational in the sense that it overrides the boundaries I have spoken of.
Not only would these Amendments do that, but they would cut across the principle of the Bill—no one can really say that Amendments which give effect to 178 out of the 209 major changes proposed by the Commission are doing


anything other than cutting across the principle. They must be, and the House has already decided—

Mr. Tom Boardman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what number of people will be affected, if any, by this Amendment?

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot give the exact figures for people in Melton and Belvoir, but there is a tiny group of people in Melton and Belvoir rural district, who are in the Parliamentary constituency of the hon. Member for Melton, but who are in another local government boundary, Rutland and Stamford. There is a small group in Rutland and Stamford for local government purposes and in her constituency for Parliamentary purposes. It is a small number, and I will gladly give the figure later. This is not what I would regard as a bad example of this.

Miss Pike: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that there is that small number there, but that there is a very large number in Leicester, and that this has been going on for the whole time that I have been a Member?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree. The hon. Lady is right. She has had this overspill effect in her constituency for a very long time. The House has decided to ask her to put up with it for three or four years more. She has already put up with it for 20 years—[Interruption.] I cannot remember when the hon. Lady became a Member.

Miss Pike: I have put up with it quite happily for a long time. One of the arguments against the Bill is that it will cause disruption. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is nonsense.

Mr. Callaghan: The Bill will not cause disruption. It proposes that the hon. Lady should fight the next election on the same boundaries as she fought the 1966, 1964, 1959 and 1955 elections. There will be no disruption at all. I do not think the hon. Lady's example is one of the major cases. There are far bigger cases in which the effect would be quite important.
The Opposition want to include all constituencies with electorates over 80,000. That is not the principle of the Bill. It cuts against the principle. When

I hear their full-throated cheers at the mention of Huyton, I see the political cloven hoof coming through. [Interruption.] The Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), usually makes agreeable speeches, but this time he seems to be pursuing his avocation in a different way. He is not one of those I would accuse of this, but there is a determined attempt by the Opposition to pursue a mean and nasty vendetta against the Prime Minister.
That is why the Opposition give full-throated cheers every time they hear the word "Huyton". That is why they want to vote. The case for Huyton is as good as that for anywhere else. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite will not convince me that they are not interested in the politics of this matter as long as they make the sort of approach which they have made.
Although I shall be happy to listen to the arguments on the Amendments, none of them will stand up on technical grounds. Further Amendments would be needed to other constituencies which are not included.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking to my Amendment No. 13, which is complemented and amplified by Amendment No. 70 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).
I am encouraged by what the Secretary of State said. He complained that some of our Amendments were not complete and that they would have consequential effects which could not be coped with. He said that we had done only 138 out of 209. That was not too bad in the four days which we had at our disposal and with the help which we could get. However, I had the benefit of the help of a department of the House in getting my proposal on the Notice Paper. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take note of it.
There are no ragged edges left over in the Bristol area as dealt with by my Amendment. It deals with the constituencies within the City of Bristol and the consequential effect on South Gloucestershire, and nothing else.

Mr. Callaghan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He may be able to find a few square yards here and there, but it is fair to say that this is an easy case to deal with.
I was disinclined to get involved in the rather squalid debate about the Bill. Some of the speeches which I heard from the benches opposite earlier today almost confirmed me in my reluctance. However, I shall try to stick to the important practicalities without getting involved in the political squalor.
I am the only Opposition Member for a city of nearly 500,000 people. Therefore, I thought it unlikely that anyone would put the case for dealing with Bristol effectively if I did not say a few words. My Amendment would enact the Boundary Commission's proposals for Bristol, and the consequential Amendments would deal with all the other matters related to it.
I would like to speak only briefly about the City of Bristol. I have had no representations whatever from the political party to which I belong, either in the city or outside, either to put down an Amendment or to intervene in the debate. I speak as a Bristolian who is anxious to see my city represented in a balanced and effective manner and to see the uncertainty removed which certainly now exists following the proposals of the Boundary Commission and the reluctance of the Government to enact them. Redcliffe-Maud is no excuse in this case. None of the suggestions in that report need prevent the Government enacting the Bristol proposals.
What are, briefly, the Bristol proposals? The Boundary Commission makes a major change in the abolition of the Central Division of Bristol, now represented by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who sits opposite, to whom, it must be added, this fate has happened twice before. One must have some sympathy with the hon. Member, who has made valuable contributions in the House, having had this unhappy event happen to him on two previous occasions, in having his constituency abolished by the Boundary Commission. One must feel for him when he finds that it is happening yet again.
I had not intended to refer to the hon. Member personally but for his remarks in

the Bristol Evening Post of last week—I have told him that I would refer to him—where he attacked me. The headline stated:
Mr. Palmer hits at 'foolish' Tory move.
He accused me of making a "very foolish move" by putting down an Amendment to enact the Boundary Commission's proposals for our city and said:
He proposes to eliminate the separate representation of the business heart of the City which has existed from ancient times.
That was the burden of the hon. Member's complaint. He said that I was foolish in putting down my Amendment which, he said, would have that effect.
To start with, it is not particularly foolish in the view of many hon. Members, on both sides, to enact the Boundary Commission's proposals. Secondly, it is not true that the business part of Bristol is all in the Central division. It is half in Central Bristol and half in West Bristol. West Bristol has been represented by the Tory Party since 1885, and, incidentally, by myself in four Parliaments, rather more than twice as long as the hon. Member.
One does not, however, want to make play about this, because the representation of the City is a partnership between all the Members—although it must be admitted that Socialists, by their very nature, tend to make it difficult to work in partnership with the world of business, believing, as they do, that profits are immoral. However, I welcome the help which I hope to get from hon. Members opposite in getting on with the West Dock proposal and all the other things that Bristol needs so badly but which are vetoed by the Government.
To revert to the serious point of the Boundary Commission's proposals, they arose out of a thorough study of the city's population statistics and they were subject to a public inquiry at which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central appeared, together with two of his hon. Friends. The evidence which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central gave flatly contradicts his attack on me. At the local inquiry, held in September, 1967, at which there were no objections whatever from the Conservative Party, the hon. Member for Bristol, Central and his friends were represented and, indeed, appeared in person.
The general view of the Commission was that the City should have five and not six Members of Parliament due to the population changes. It said:
This acceptance is, in the case of the Bristol Central Labour Party and its present M.P."—
mentioning the hon. Member for Bristol, Central—
understandably less than enthusiastic—
and one can sympathise with that; but the hon. Member himself
conceded it to be inevitable.
Yet he attacks me for attempting to enact the very proposal.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: As a matter of correction, it was the Conservative Party which was represented and the Labour Members for Bristol who turned up and spoke for themselves.

Mr. Cooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Conservatives in the city felt it was quite wrong that they should get entangled in these squalid arguments; they merely sent learned counsel to demolish the case put up by hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central contested the suggestion that his constituency continued to lose electors. However, says the inspector, he
does not actively seek to disturb the Commissions provisional determination 
and the inspector said that it should be looked at again in the future should it need revision. The present figure for Bristol, Central is 35,081, which is 5,000 less than it was when this discussion took place. So that it is 35,000 and going down.
That, I think, is the argument for dealing with the case of Bristol, Central as a matter of urgency, and I want now to refer briefly to the other seats in Bristol, and to say that I have no quarrel whatever with the recommendations affecting Bristol, West. They are neither to my advantage nor disadvantage, and whatever they were I would not seek to upset them because I am making the case that the Commission's proposals should be enacted for the city as a whole.
This brings me to the general matter, and the point I want to make is that here was a case where the Labour Party

did not like the look of fie proposals and sought to have them altered at the public inquiry and that the Labour Members for Bristol fell out amongst themselves. The supporters of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) produced an extraordinary scheme which was condemned out of hand by the hon. Member for Bristol, South and the hon. Member for Bristol, Central—and very right, too. I shall not refer to either of those hon. Gentlemen again, so they need have no fear that they need to challenge what I am going to read out from the findings of the inspector.
The figures which were produced by the supporters of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East to put their case and to alter the electorate in certain wards to their advantage were produced, according to the inspector, by
a method about the scientific basis of which I am far from satisfied, purporting to demonstrate the future numbers of electors to be expected. Unfortunately, however, a comparatively cursory survey by"—
counsel for the Conservative Party
of no more than the first table revealed that, quite apart from any criticism which there might be of the basis of calculation, there were a number of copying and arithmetical errors".
He went on that the Labour agent
was obliged in the end to agree with me that in these tables the figures for the past are approximate and those for the future speculative".
The inspector said that he would feel safely able to place no reliance whatever on the material.
I hope that I have made the point clear without reading out the whole passage, but perhaps I had better read it all:
This is not on any view such case, but even if it were I should not, in the circumstances to which I have referred above, feel safely able to place any reliance whatever upon this material.
In conclusion, the inspector says that the constituencies should be reduced from six to five and that the disturbance proposed by the Labour Party to the electors of South-East Bristol to bring about its political aims was quite unjustified.
That, really, sums up the whole case. The contentions of the party opposite would involve a disturbance which would be quite unjustified. The proposals


which I and my hon. Friends are making in respect of this one city and the other places we speak about in the Amend-

ments are all of them neat, tidy, sensible proposals, and I hope that the Government will think again before they reject them.

10.30 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: In rising to speak on Amendment No. 22, as many right hon. and hon. Members know, I speak as an independent Member of the House. The Home Secretary knows that I do not agree with the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in their entirety. I criticise the Home Secretary and the Guillotine, because here we are dealing with complicated matters and time should be given for adequate discussion by the House of Commons.
The Boundary Commission had to deal with constituencies represented by very distinguished Members: Huyton, represented by the Prime Minister; Ormskirk represented by the hon. Member now addressing the Committee; Crosby; and Liverpool, Walton. This caused the Boundary Commission a great deal of worry, as it was faced with a difficult problem.
The Boundary Commission started off with the Prime Minister's constituency, Huyton, which it said, was grossly overlarge and about which something must be done, as was said at the opening of the Inquiry. My constituency of Ormskirk, it said, was also too large, and action had to be taken. The constituency of Crosby was too small, as was the constituency of Bootle. The Boundary Commission started to deal with this problem long before the Government of the day decided to alter the voting age from 21 to 18.
The change in the voting age altered the whole complex of the problem, because Huyton has the largest number of people between the ages of 18 and 21 in the whole of North-West England. So when, in 1966, the Boundary Commission started to consider the figures of 87.000 plus, for Huyton even without the natural growth year by year, the result of reducing the voting age to 18 automatically produced an electorate of 100,000 plus in the Prime Minister's constituency. With the present constituency boundaries and electorate this is probably the fastest growing constituency in the North-West, and it will remain in that state for a long time.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: What about Cheadle?

Sir D. Glover: I am speaking to Amendment No. 22. I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will not, as usual, keep on interrupting from a sedentary position.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Glover: I will not give way.
The Boundary Commission solved this difficult problem by moving one-third of my constituency into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—to which I did not object although it contained some of the best Conservative areas; it removed one-third of his constituency into Bootle, thereby making Bootle and Crosby viable and, if the situation had stopped there, making my constituency viable. But the Commission then removed from the Prime Minister's constituency into my constituency the urban district of Kirkby, thereby making the Prime Minister's constituency viable and transferring the problem from him to me by making by constituency as big as his.
This is my major reason for objecting to the Boundary Commission's proposals. I tell the Committee bluntly that, although I have opposed the boundary recommendations all along the line—and the Home Secretary knows that I have written to him and opposed the recommendations—at least the Commission has solved the problem of Bootle, Crosby and Huyton. It started off with three problems and has reduced them to one, very much to my detriment or to my constituents' detriment.
That was done by a neutral nonpolitical organisation. Although I have fought this tooth and nail, all along the line, I have no feeling, nor have my constituents or Conservative supporters, that this was a squalid political deal. We realise that the Boundary Commission has made a disastrous mistake in its proposals, but there is no suspicion in our minds that this has all been done for a political purpose.
What has now happened as a result of the Home Secretary's action? To he frank, my Conservative colleagues in my constituency are as pleased as Punch. But that is not the point. The point with


which the House is dealing is that during the past 150 years there has been a good deal of gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries to suit political power. Because of this evil—and it is a very great evil—Parliament in its collective wisdom, has said that it must be put in the hands of people with no political axe to grind.
I say with deep feeling that although personally I believe that the Commission has made a mistake in the way the proposals have affected the Ormskirk constituency, what has been done by the Commission has been done without any political bias. But we are now in danger of putting in the minds of the public the fact that a political axe is now being ground.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not altering any boundaries. The hon. Gentleman will fight his election next time on the same boundaries he fought last time, and so will I and everybody else. What the hon. Gentleman said when he wrote to me was that he thought the proposals for South-West Lancashire a disaster. I do not know whether they are a disaster or not, but what the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned—and I hope that he will mention it when talking about his constituents—is that under the Redcliffe-Maud proposals Bootle will be split between two units, Huyton between two units, Ince between three units, and Ormskirk between three units. If we are going ahead with that reorganisation, does it make sense to implement a disaster now and then to have to have another go at it in three or four years' time?

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that intervention. The Ormskirk constituency is at the moment split between four authorities. Under the proposals, the right hon. Gentleman has said that we are to be split between three. When it comes to parliamentary boundaries, the local government area does not make all that much difference.
I have not the slightest difficuty in dealing with three urban districts and one rural district. I would have very little difficulty in dealing with the municipal Borough of Crosby. I deal with each of my constituents individually. I deal with their problems, and I would have little difficulty about that. I am not

responsible for sewerage, drainage, and dustbin collection. The actual boundary of the constituency does not make all that much difference. But the Home Secretary is insisting that a problem which the Boundary Commission started off by saying must be dealt with will not in fact be dealt with.
The Huyton constituency had 87,000 electors in 1966. With the alteration in the voting age, that is automatically over 100,000. With the growth of the constituency rising rapidly, it will very soon be 110,000. Yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes that it should remain as it is for as long as we can see into the future.
We have argued on other Amendments how long it will be before these changes take place. We on this side of the Committee are more realistic in thinking that the changes will be much longer delayed, to deal with this vast reorganisation of local government, than hon. Members opposite will admit. Yet we are leaving unchanged for perhaps the next 10 or 15 years what is already the largest constituency. Before the next boundary changes take place, the constituency of Huyton will probably be 120,000 strong. That cannot be the right way for this House to conduct its affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman knows my detailed view about what the Boundary Commission recommended for this part of South-west Lancashire. But I am sure that it would be far wiser for the Committee to accept the recommendations of the Commission, with all their disadvantages, rather than leave the strong suspicion that these changes are being made not to suit the hon. Member for Ormskirk, but the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson).

Mr. Tony Gardner: As an hon. Member on this side of the Committee who is put to considerable disadvantage by the action proposed by my right hon. Friend, perhaps I might be permitted a few remarks.
One point made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was that he was not very favourable to the Boundary Commission's recommendations. I am in a similar position, though for the opposite reason, in that the Commissioners recommended substantial changes to my constituency which would be to my advantage, for two reasons.
First, it is a sprawling constituency which is split in half by the river Trent and difficult to manage and organise, much as we try. Secondly, although the Government have been accused of gerrymandering, the Commissioners proposed to take away a substantial rural part of my constituency and add a substantial industrial and mining area, the political implications of which are obvious.
The accusation of gerrymandering has been made throughout these debates and, in that connection, I want to look at the proposals for the city and county of Nottingham generally.
I am not sure why we appear at all in Amendment No. 71, since the only substantially large constituency in the county is Carlton, which has an electorate of only 74,000. But perhaps we can come to the reason for it later.
Let us be quite frank: we are discussing politics and political issues. When we look at the proposals made in Nottinghamshire—proposals which will not be implemented for the moment as a result of the Bill—let us consider the realities of the situation.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are optimistic if they imagine that they will get back to a 1959 election situation. In 1959, there was only one Labour Member of Parliament for the whole of the City of Nottingham and the immediately surrounding county, though there were others in the north of the county. The effect of the Boundary Commission's proposals would be to give three safe seats to the Labour Party in Nottingham and its surroundings. There would be another marginal Labour seat and a Conservative marginal seat.
10.45 p.m.
As far as I can make out, in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire the only people in favour of the Boundary Commission's proposals are some local Labour Party associations and myself. The local councils, dominated by Conservatives, and local Conservative Party associations are opposed to them. If this is gerrymandering I wish that my right hon. Friend would get it right.
I want now to refer to the reasons why the Boundary Commissioners took the decision that they did about the City and County of Nottingham. It is important in the context of the way that the

Amendments were moved. They say that the only substantially large constituency is Carlton, but on page 53 of their report they say:
We concluded that, whether ten or eleven scats were allocated to the county, it would be preferable to separate the county borough from the administrative county for the purposes of parliamentary representation.
This was why they went through an exercise which involved substantial changes to many constituencies.
Now we have the Redeliffe-Maud Report, which says that the administrative City of Nottingham should be part and parcel of the administrative County of Nottingham. So this exercise has been gone through to no purpose. There are no hugh constituencies of 100,000 there, so there is no reason for this kind of redistribution.
Suppose that these proposals were imagined by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to suit the advantage of the Conservative Party. In that event, the Opposition would not be here tonight arguing that—[HON. GENTLEMEN: "Yes."] Let me finish. Rt. hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be here tonight arguing that because of the imminence of local government reform this must be put off because we could not have two upheavals one after the other.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ormskirk would not be one of those leading the argument. I think that my right hon. Friend was wrong not to announce, when the decision to set up the Royal Commission was made, that the boundaries decision would be put off until after the local government reorganisation.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Callaghan: In the light of those "Hear, hears", it would be interesting to know whether the Opposition would have agreed at that time to it being put off.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman never tried it, and the fact that he never tried it shows that he is in bad faith.

Mr. Gardner: I hope that the private argument is now finished. My point was that we have been discussing an accusation of gerrymandering. I said, and I maintain the view, that the Government were wrong not to announce at the beginning that, because of local government


reorganisation, it would be necessary to hold up the process of Parliamentary boundary reorganisation. But they did not do this. The facts are still, however, that there will be substantial changes brought about by the changes in local government and it is not worth going through this exercise time and again.
For these reasons, despite the obvious disadvantage to myself, I hope that the Amendment will be rejected.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to return to Amendment No. 22, which deals with the Prime Minister's constituency—Huyton. The recommendations of the Boundary Commission in respect of Huyton are like a pebble in a pool, as they affect the four neighbouring constituencies of Ince, Bootle, Ormskirk and Crosby.
I readily admit, before being accused of anything, that if the Commission's recommendations were carried out they would be of great political advantage to me. I wish that the Prime Minister would as readily admit that if the Commission's recommendations were carried out they would be of great political disadvantage to him. This is not something which one can giggle off.

Mr. Callaghan: What evidence has the hon. Gentleman for that last statement that carrying out the recommendations would be of political disadvantage to the Prime Minister?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Callaghan: It is no good hon. Gentlemen saying, "Oh". Has that been examined, and can the hon. Gentleman say which constituencies would be which?

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman has only to look back on the political history of Kirkby to realise that it is staunchly Labour. There are 30,000 to 35,000 such voters in that district.
The provisional recommendations of the Commission were to divide these five constituencies into almost equal numbers of constituents, between 59,000 and 68,000. The Commission said:
We consider that the existing Huyton C.C. (87.379 electors) could not be left unchanged and our provisional recommendations reduced the size of its electorate by transferring Kirkby U.D …

My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has shown that that 87,000, which is a large enough constituency as it stands, has in it a large number of people between the ages of 18 and 21. The right to vote at 18 will increase the constituency by 13,000 to 15,000, bringing it up to a 100,000 constituency, and rising over the next 10 years to 120,000.
The Commission then had representations made to it, and an inquiry was held by the assistant commissioner, which produced the revised recommendation:
 The assistant Commissioner therefore supported our scheme on the ground that the present Huyton C.C. could not be left unchanged with 87,379 electors.
That was the second time the report said that this constituency could not be left unchanged.
Further representations and objections were made to the Commission, and some modified recommendations were made after a further inquiry. That was the third time the Commission confirmed that Huyton was so large that it could not be left as it was.
There were yet further representations, and then a fourth inquiry, following which there was a final recommendation which stuck to the first provisional recommendation that Kirkby should be removed from Huyton.
The whole theme of those four thorough inquiries was merely that Huyton was too large, and could not be left as it was. The obvious and almost undisputed solution was to remove the urban district of Kirkby. There was no real dispute that Huyton had to be reduced in size. The whole issue in those four thorough inquiries—and I do not know anywhere else in the Commission's Report where there has been such thorough inquiry as in this case—was where to put Kirkby, into whose constituency? My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk was landed with it in the end, unfortunately for him. I do not mean that in any ill reference to the constituents in Kirkby.

Sir D. Glover: I think the Committee ought to be aware that I was given Kirkby even though the assistant commissioner, after the last inquiry, recommended that it ought to go to Liverpool, Walton.

Mr. Graham Page: Despite that, the Boundary Commission stuck to its first recommendation. After all these inquiries it was satisfied that that recommendation was right. Is there any reason why this House should set aside this politically independent recommendation, after so much inquiry into the facts and the ascertaining of the best thing to be done for these five constituencies?
The only answer we have had is, "Well, the recommendation would split up the constituencies over a number of local government boundaries." This has never troubled us in the district before. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk pointed out, a Member deals with his individual constituents all the better if he has to consult a number of local authorities in dealing with his constituents' problems. No hon. Member should be considered to be a Member for a local authority, and represent a local authority, or even be an Ombudsman for a local authority; he should be a Member for his individual constituents. There is no logical reason for not carrying out this recommendation.
So we have to look for an illogical reason—or perhaps even this is a logical one: there is no doubt that the Prime Minister would lose his seat if these recommendations were carried out. That is something that we must bear in mind throughout the course of this debate.

Mr. James Dunn: Many people on Merseyside who have studied this matter of the four inquiries very closely do not believe that my right hon. Friend's constituency position would be damaged, but that the Ormskirk seat would become a Labour seat. No doubt the Prime Minister would have taken it, as he did before.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the Prime Minister going to change his constituency from Huyton to Ormskirk? Is that a fact?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: This was to have been one of the great debates. This was to have been about gerrymandering, involving the Prime Minister. Naturally, it was to be a set piece. The trouble is that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has lowered the temperature a little. He is a most engaging hon. Member and a fine Parliamentarian, but on

this occasion I wonder whether he is being absolutely honest with the Committee.
I have a reasonably good memory, and I remember the representations made—

Sir D. Glover: I said so.

Mr. Heffer: Yes, the hon. Member said so. He had to say so. The facts are there. If he had not done so I would have said it for him.
I repeat it. What happened? When it became known that there was a possibility—a remote chance—that Kirkby, which had always been a strong Labour centre, was once again to go to the Ormskirk constituency—it was part of that constituency when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister won it in 1945 —with a few additional people from Liverpool, the screams ccming from the hon. Member were unmerciful. He did not want Kirkby in the Ormskirk constituency, and he had a million reasons why it should not be in. The main reason was that it would make Ormskirk a somewhat doubtful seat for the Conservatives.

11.0 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member had better explain to the Committee that the Kirkby Urban District Council, at that time heavily Labour-controlled, also opposed the Boundary Commission changes and wanted eventually to go into the hon. Member's constituency. They did not want to come to Ormskirk.

Mr. Heffer: They did not want to go over into the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The local authority felt that there should be a new authority, comprising Kirkby and two wards from my constituency. I objected to the Commission, but not because I did not want that arrangement. Those two wards are the two strongest Labour wards in my constituency, which would have made the new seat the strongest Labour seat in Lancashire. I should have had no worries for the next five years.
The truth of the matter is—this brings out the hypocrisy of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that it looked as though Kirkby was going in at that stage, which would have made Ormskirk a doubtful Conservative seat, and the hon. Gentleman's screams were unmerciful. But, he says, things are different now: he does not like the Commission's proposals, but he will


reluctantly accept them, and, knowing that he will not win the vote, will throw in his lot with his hon. Friends.

Sir D. Glover: The whole of the hon. Member's speech is an attack on me, which is a little unfair. The whole point is that there was not much point—he knows this, because he attended the inquiries—in dealing with a constituency of 87,000 and making another of 87,000. That would only transfer the problem from one constituency to another. That was the basis of my argument.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends keep saying that we are gerrymandering by changing constituency boundaries, but we are not changing constituency boundaries. Like me, the hon. Gentleman was asked by the Liver-pool Daily Post for his reaction to the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, which would mean substantial changes in the Liverpool - Ormskirk - Bootle - Kirkby - Huyton area. He said that it did not matter that there were various local authorities in his constituency. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, we do not represent local authorities. But we would need much more money and many more secretaries if we had to deal with county boroughs and county councils as well as the smaller authorities on any large scale. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Perhaps some hon. Members do not do their job properly. I do, and it costs me a lot of money to deal with only one local authority.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): Order. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) does not give way, he must be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Heffer: I have given way a number of times, Sir Barnett. My right hon. Friend has never suggested that there should be no changes in Parliamentary boundaries. He has said that there should not be changes at this point in time. Once the Redcliffe-Maud proposals have been thoroughly discussed throughout the country and there has been the thorough change in our local government system which we all admit to be essential, it will become very sensible to look at the Parliamentary boundaries again and to make changes. But hon. Members opposite

say that we are gerrymandering and trying to protect Labour seats. They know that they are being thoroughly politically dishonest. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Ormskirk, whom I greatly admire, has perpetuated the same dishonest argument.

Mr. Frank Taylor: I support many of these Amendments and particularly No. 69, which refers to Manchester.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should make less noise.

Mr. Taylor: It is all right, Sir Barnett. They are always like that over there, on those benches below the Gangway.
The Home Secretary made several errors in his speech. He spent a long time telling us of the ripples which would be set up if we made piecemeal amendments to constituencies without considering the repercussions to other constituencies. That is the most potent argument for adopting the Boundary Commission's Report in toto, because if we accept only little bits of it we do set up ripples.
On the other hand, in considering the changes proposed for Manchester and Bristol, for example, we see that the adoption of the Commission's proposals would cause no ripples at all. In Manchester, two Labour seats would become one—which may be another matter.
Large numbers of people are already disfranchised in the country, partly by legal processes and partly by circumstances. The Bill will partly disfranchise many thousands more, in the sense that some constituencies have only 20,000 voters while others have 100,000 voters. Six votes in one constituency equal one vote in another. This situation builds up because of movements of population over the years. It is obviously wrong, and the Boundary Commission, looking to the future, wanted as nearly as possible to achieve one man, one vote. But the Labour Party will not accept this.
More people than one might think are disfranchised. Even if 80 per cent. of the voters take part in a General Election—the percentage is never as high as that—that still leaves about 6 million not taking part. Many do not vote because they are too lazy—because they prefer television or the local "pub" but many others are disfranchised.
For example, in my constituency of Moss Side there is an overall population movement of about 15 per cent. There is a greater movement in East Moss Side because of the bigger immigrant population. However, about 80 per cent. of that 15 per cent. do not vote because it is not practicable for them to do so. In a city as large as Manchester, with its present nine constituencies, somebody who has moved from one part of the city to another may have to travel eight or nine miles to register his vote. Perhaps he cannot get a postal vote. In any event, many people are not aware of the postal vote system or are made aware of it too late. In other cases the postal voting arrangements are not efficient enough.
There are other reasons why people are disfranchised. Errors occur in electoral lists. I have seen the names of babies recorded on the lists and adults being excluded from them. Sometimes electoral forms are placed through letter boxes in houses where many people lodge, but because the forms are lost or destroyed nobody in those houses appear on the lists. I do not want further disfranchisement to occur, but that will happen under the Bill.
From a selfish point of view, I would not welcome the Boundary Commission's recommendations being implemented, because my area would have two wards, and at present these are dripping with Labour councillors.

Mr. Hogg: "Dripping" is the word.

Mr. Taylor: This Socialist area adjoins my sensible, Conservative and highly-respected constituency of Moss Side. But I can cast any selfish views I might have to one side because I appreciate that Manchester should be broken down into eight, rather than nine, constituencies. The Boundary Commission's recommendations in this respect are, therefore, wise. I accept its recommendations not only because they are fair, but because I would like a chance to make the people living in the adjoining Socialist area see the light.
In Moss Side I have 12 Conservative councillors holding the 12 wards. The six Labour councillors in the area next door might, if the Boundary Commission's proposals were implemented, find themselves unseated and being re-

placed by Conservatives. The Government will not accept the Commission's recommendations for Manchester because they fear the loss of a seat.
We have had nothing but diversionary arguments from the Government against adopting the Boundary Commission's recommendations in full. The Government are obviously politically motivated in this matter and I must describe as a fraud their case against accepting the independent proposals of the Commission. Although the Bill may seem an S.O.S. to the Labour Party, it is really an S.L.S.—" Save Labour Seats "—exercise. Unfortunately, because of the weight of votes on the benches opposite, we cannot simply tear up the Bill and throw it away.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a serious point at issue in that, under Redcliffe-Maud, Gorton would be split between SELNEC (e) and (i) and Openshaw would be split between SELNEC (e) and (f). In these circumstances, the Amendment standing in his name deals only with five of the constituencies in the area completely ignores the other three. Apart from the political argument which the hon. Gentleman is adducing, he must see that there is a logical argument as well.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: I quite agree that there is a logical argument; that is what I am putting to the Committee. I was saying that this Bill should be torn up; that it should be destroyed. I do not pretend—

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member will come to the Amendment we are discussing, rather than continue to follow the general aspects of the Bill, he would be more in order.

Mr. Taylor: I was bringing to the attention of the Committee Amendment No. 69, and on that, I would point out that the Boundary Commission's Report was the result of a clear investigation and a clear decision. My support is for the Amendment to it for lYlanchester, or part of Manchester. There would be no ripples flowing from that. There is surely no answer—

Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Member give way? He is dealing with only five constituencies in Manchester out of


eight. How can he possibly approach a redistribution on those lines?

Mr. Taylor: I am not attempting to do that, and there would be no ripples about the five. The other three would present no difficulties. There would be one Labour seat the fewer, and that, to my mind, is the over-riding factor.
I know that the Government will not listen to anything we say. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have no time for sound logic and I can only hope that the electors, when they learn what this Amendment is about, and the others grouped with it which are equally sound and logical, will realise that their votes are being devalued. I hope that they will fully understand, what is more, that this is the action of the Prime Minister who devalued the money in their pockets. This is a thoroughly unscrupulous action.
I hope that the electors will remember that it is this Government, and the Prime Minister, who is not here, who are unscrupulous. I hope that they will realise that, in his class, the Prime Minister is absolutely outstanding in that, during this century, there have been only two men in that class—the Prime Minister and Horatio Bottomley.

Mr. Howie: I realise that the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. F. Taylor) did us the service of getting us away from the southern part of Lancashire—a part of the country with which I am not very familiar—but in his closing words he came to the only reason why we have been talking so much of that part of England, namely, to draw attention once again to the constituency of Huyton.
I will not dwell on that subject, except to say that I have noticed during this debate that the merest reference to Huyton seems to draw spite—I would even say malevolent spite—from hon. Members opposite. It is spite of which I did not think that they were capable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am a man of mild disposition.
I have considerable regard for many hon. Members opposite, including our good friend the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who is not here at the moment, but whom we know to be a good Parliamentarian who has a great

love for the House of Commons. I exclude him from the allegations of spite. It seems unreasonable that the Opposition's hatred of the constituency of Huyton should show, and it would be better for the Committee as a whole if they dropped that aspect of this argument.

Mr. Clegg: Will the hon. Gentleman realise that our spite is not for Huyton, but for the man who represents it?

Mr. Howie: I regard the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) as a friend of mine. I call him "Pasha", because he and I wandered around the Middle East for a short time a year or so ago, when he was indistinguishable from the inhabitants we met except that he did not wear a burnoose.

The Temporary Chairman: With all due respect to the hon. Member, I must say that he is drifting from the Amendment.

Mr. Howie: I am grateful to you, Sir Barnett, for drawing me back to order. I have to admit that we were in the wrong part of the Middle East.

The Temporary Chairman: That, too is not relevant to this debate.

Mr. Howie: I am trying very hard to remain in order, but I was tempted and, unfortunately, I yielded, because of my friendship for the hon. Member for North Fylde.
The Opposition have chosen to put down an Amendment about Huyton and to vote upon it because their spite is for them a sufficiently strong motive, but they have also put down Amendment No. 24 which deals with my constituency, and there is no possible reason why any hon. Member opposite, or on this side of the Committee, should feel any spite towards me, except for a small incident in my career which affected one or two of my hon. Friends some time ago, when I was playing another part.
I do not know why there should be an Amendment about Luton. Just as I have no wish to discuss Huyton and other constituencies in that part of the country, because I do not have that detailed knowledge of them which is important in a debate of this kind, I am amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends should have suggested an Amendment


concerning my constituency when even a cursory knowledge of the Report would have led them to hold their hand.
I think that my remarks will show the general strategic error into which many hon. Members opposite have fallen, including the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), who spoke some time ago and who has now left us, presumably to give his speech to the representatives of the Bristol newspapers outside. He returned for a few moments and then left again.
The burden of his argument, and it is sometimes the burden of the argument of other hon. Members opposite, is that we as Parliament should merely rubber stamp the proposals of the Boundary Commission. These Amendments are holus bolus taken directly from the Commission's Report without much detailed thought about them.

Mr. Cwilym Roberts: The Amendment seems to suggest that the electors of Linslade should vote in the two constituencies of Buckingham and South Bedfordshire, which would seem to be an abnormal state of affairs.

Mr. Howie: This is another example of the slipshod approach of hon. Gentlemen opposite. My hon. Friend is much more aware of the feelings of the voters of Linslade than I am, and I would hesitate to tamper with the relationship that he has with them. I sometimes think that it might be a good thing if voters were to vote twice. The argument is that we should accept the report of the Commission, merely rubber-stamp it, to resign as Members of Parliament, to give up our responsibilities to our constituents. I am totally in favour of distributions of this kind being handled not by Boundary Commissions, but by politicians.

Mr. Hogg: That is the first time that has been said.

Mr. Howie: It may he, but I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why I say it.
We already allow politicians at local level to distribute or redistribute constituencies in the boroughs. We have a local inquiry and that sort of thing, but we do not call in any Boundary Commission. Borough councils are allowed

to do this, but we are not. If it is good enough for borough councils it is good enough for us, with the safeguard of the public inquiry.
The idea of a Boundary Commission seems fair and reasonable and in many ways it is. In the proposals which gave rise to Amendment No. 24 we can see that the results of the Boundary Commission can be arbitrary and capricious in their results. Amendment No. 24 is taken from the Boundary Commission's Report, and was the original proposal of the Commission. That proposal became the subject of a public inquiry in February, 1966. This was an impartial and proper public inquiry. There were only two main witnesses—myself on the Labour side, and I am well known for my impartiality and broad views in this matter—and on the other side the agent for the Luton Conservative Party.
The agent's impartiality can be shown by the fact that when he got on to the witness stand he said that the actual line, wherever it was drawn through Luton, did not matter twopence. It was a very proper and important comment from that man, especially as he was the functionary of a political party. He said that the boundary line did not matter twopence. Not long after that he got the sack and he is now the agent for Colchester, I think. If the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) is present, perhaps he will make sure that he becomes the witness at the next public inquiry there, if there is one.

Mr. Roebuck: It is interesting to hear the attitude of the Conservative Party. Can my hon. Friend tell us what was the attitude of the National Liberals in Luton?

Mr. Howie: The National Liberals did not surface in Luton, nor have they since, and I do not think they ever will.
The assistant commissioner, who heard the evidence and pondered on it, went on a tour of the division with the town clerk, examining the ground to familiarise himself with the constituency—a thing which the Commission had not done and which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who tabled Amendment No. 24 had not done, either. The inquiry altered the proposals of the Commission. I am not very satisfied with the extremely


barren account of the assistant commissioner's report in this blue document I have here.
11.30 p.m.
The Boundary Commission's Report states that his recommendations were for a Luton, East of 50,840 electors and a Luton, West of 47,775 electors. In a sense that is true, but the assistant commissioner made two recommendations. For some reason, the Commission has not honoured us with the second recommendation. That is not quite the standard of accuracy which I expect from a Boundary Commission.
The other very intelligent proposal of the assistant commissioner was to accept the evidence which I had put before the inquiry, which was, as he put it,
that the proposals
of the Boundary Commission
be altered by transferring the whole Dallow ward to the constituency of Luton, East and by transferring the whole of Wardown ward to the constituency of Luton, West.
That happened to be the evidence which, with my knowledge of the constituency and my known impartiality, I put to the commissioner and which he, having heard the evidence and studied and examined the ground, agreed with. He put that recommendation in a report to the Boundary Commission and the Boundary Commission merely turned it down with a somewhat legalistic excuse, very slenderly put in the report which has come before Parliament and which has misled right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
The suggestion which had been turned down by the public inquiry is the proposal which is included in Amendment No. 24. Since it has been impartially examined and found wanting, it should be found wanting here, too, and we should turn it down.
There is one other point which I wish to make with regard to Amendment No. 24, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) will forgive me for trespassing li ahtly on his constituency, which, he knows, I try not to do. For one thing, it is bigger than mine. The Redcliffe-Maud proposals, which have been mentioned from time to time during this debate, have an effect in this part of the country. A new unitary authority—No. 49—is proposed which includes

Luton, the Luton Rural District Council and part of West Hertfordshire. The interesting thing from this point of view is that the eastern boundary of unitary authority No. 49, if I may call it by such a resounding name, goes into Hertfordshire and contains three parishes in that county. That is something which cannot be left out of account in dealing with the constituencies of Bedfordshire. South and Hitchin.
In this respect, my right hon. Friends proposals meet precisely the actualities and the requirements. They leave my constituency alone and they group Bedfordshire, South and Hitchin and then revise the boundaries of those two constituencies.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member's description of his evidence to the Boundary Commission. At that time, of course, he knew very well that the Government were contemplating, by way of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, changes in local government. When the hon. Member was giving evidence to the Commission, did he say that if the Redcliffe-Maud Committee was to report he would come to the House and say that the recommendations for which he was giving evidence would not he accepted by his Government?

Mr. Howie: I am extremely interested in the care and attention with which the hon. Member has listened to my evidence, because I did not give my evidence tonight. All that I said was that I gave my evidence and that the assistant commissioner agreed with it. I did not say one word of what that evidence was. This is a sheer fabrication by the hon. Member. I congratulate him on his inventiveness at this late hour. The hon. Gentleman is known to be inventive. This never arose in the evidence.
The last point which I wish to make to my right hon. Friend is this. It is not so long ago that he had occasion to bring in a Bill to reform another place. During the interesting debates on that Bill, which proved abortive, the hon. Member for Ormskirk and I put to the Government proposals which the Government found unacceptable, and sometimes uncomfortable, although they were excellent proposals and very mildly put. Under the promptings of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, should another place take


it into its head to tamper with the constitution of the House of Commons, and should my right hon. Friend feel obliged to bring forward other legislation, he will find that this time he will have my full, complete and confident support.
Amendment No. 24, as I have shown, is a shoddy, slipshod piece of work, and should be rejected.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The point which my hon. Friend enables me to put to the Committee is that 2,953 electors would vote as a result of this Amendment in Bedfordshire, South and in Buckingham, and I would have thought that 3,000 people having two votes would be a very good reason why this Amendment should not be made.

Mr. Howie: I accept the point entirely. My complaint about people having two votes is that none is in my constituency.

[Mr HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Sir Edward Boyle: We have enjoyed an interlude by a very temporary Celtic occupant of Bedfordshire—

Mr. Howie: Like almost all Lowland Scots, I am Anglo-Saxon.

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman sounded rather Celtic to me, and so did his hon. Friend. I must say I was surprised to hear him at such length oppose Amendment No. 24, whatever its drafting deficiencies, because the hon. Gentleman, as lie must be aware, by supporting the Government, is depriving Bedfordshire of one Member to which it is entitled, and is wanting to keep Luton with an electorate of 98,000. I am surprised that he thinks that a good idea.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: rose—

Mr. Howie: I have an electorate of 60,000, almost exactly the norm, and it seems a little cavalier to tamper with that as well.

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman can look, as I can, at the figures on page 29 of the Boundary Commission's Report, but may I now turn—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: rose—

Sir E. Boyle: No. I must get on.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: rose—

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Member must remain seated.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Sir E. Boyle: I suggest—

Mr. Howie: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must respect the Chair. The right hon. Member fcr Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has the Floor, and unless he is prepared to give way hon. Members must remain seated.

Sir E. Boyle: I think that now it might be a good idea if we turned to the West Midlands—

Mr. Howie: rose—

Sir E. Boyle: No.
I think that now we should turn to Amendment No. 27, which deals with the West Midlands. I ask the Committee, and, in particular, the Government representatives, to consider very carefully that Amendment, which we put down for four reasons. The first—I begin on purpose with this one—is that the West Midlands includes the constituency of Meriden, which last year had 85.000 electors, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) has pointed out in these debates, the figure is likely to rise to 100,000 electors in 1969 and 120,000 next year.
The Home Secretary, in his speech at the start of this debate, devoted some time—we are grateful to him for having proved conclusively how desirable it would have been to accept all the recommendations of the Boundary Commission —said that he realised—he talked in his rather cavalier manner on this occasion —that we want to consider all constituencies with over 80,000 electors.
But here we are not just considering a constituency over 80,000 electors. We are considering the constituency of Meriden—among others—which already has 85,000 electors, will this year have 100,000 and in all probability next year


120,000; and even that ignores the 18year-old voters, of whom, my hon. Friend assures me, there are a very considerable number in his constituency.
Therefore, by any normal standards of reason there can be no doubt that the present position of Meriden alone is a justification, and an overwhelming one, for redistributing the West Midlands area in accordance with the proposals of the Boundary Commission.
But that is not the only reason. I want to mention three more. I shall not spend too long, because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. My second point is the very gross disparity that already exists in constituencies in the City of Birmingham. We all know, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, of Ladywood, which has only 18,000 electors, whereas the constituency of Northfield has 89,000. It is absurd that we should continue longer with this grotesque disparity in the City of Birmingham.
There has been extensive redevelopment involving substantial movements of population from the centre of the city out into the south-west. It is not surprising, because, as many will know, it is exactly in that part of the city that the motor industry has grown most rapidly. Anybody would have expected that in the 1950s and the 1960s. Since the 1955 redistribution there has been a notable growth of population.
Compare the 1956 and the 1969 electorates. I have a number of figures in front of me, and I mention to the Committee that there have been substantial reductions in all the constituencies near the centre—a substantial reduction in All Saints, in the present Aston constituency, in my constituency of Handsworthw here the electorate has fallen from 58,000 to 45,000—a more than 50 per cent. reduction in the Ladywood constituency, a substantial reduction in the Small Heath constituency, and, balancing that, a very big increase in the Northfield constituency.
But there is a third reason for this Amendment. In 1962 there was a major alteration to the boundaries of the municipal wards in Birmingham. It involved the abolition of five wards and the creation of six new wards, and alterations,

many of them major ones, to the remaining wards. In 1960 the town clerk reported publicly
that should a revision of ward boundaries be approved by the Privy Council, an interim report could, and almost certainly would, be made by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission regrouping the new wards into constituencies so that the ward and constituency boundaries would be kept co-terminous.
No such revision of the constituency boundaries has ever taken place since 1960.
11.45 p.m.
In May, 1966, the Commission published its proposals for Birmingham as part of the general review of parliamentary constituencies in England and Wales. These proposals provided, perfectly properly, for the reduction in the number of constituencies from 13 to 12.
In view of the unsatisfactory position of the wide discrepancies between the boundaries of the municipal wards and the boundaries of the Parliamentary constituencies, the city council, in October, 1967, with the support of all parties, made representations to the Boundary Commission for early implementation of the recommendations for Birmingham. The Commission's view was that it did not consider it appropriate to accord special treatment to Birmingham, but that the most practicable and sensible course for it was to deal with the matter as part of the general review.
Nobody in those days would have conceived a situation in which the Boundary Commission made perfectly proper proposals—which except in one detail were never contested and are now generally accepted—for redistribution which were not acted on. Birmingham, therefore, will continue to suffer from these great disadvantages. I put it to the Under-Secretary that this is itself a serious matter, not as serious as the disparity in numbers, but one which should not be underrated. I know from personal experience the difficulty of a situation in which there is a complete mix-up between ward boundaries and constituency boundaries persisting over seven years.
Therefore, on all these grounds—the grotesquely enlarged size of Meriden and the fact that the electorate is likely to increase next year to 120,000; secondly, the extreme disparity in constituency sizes within Birmingham; and, thirdly, this


persistent situation with the ward boundaries and constituency boundaries not coinciding—I put it to the Under-Secretary that there is an overwhelming case for giving the West Midlands special consideration.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On the Ladywood question—and I see the new hon. Member is here—I understand that Birmingham City Council is about to take a decision. What the decision will be is not for me to say, but I am advised that Ladywood will again produce a high population density.

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman is correct in the general point that the population of the inner part of Birmingham is beginning once again to rise, and I see no difficulty about immediately great disparities between the centre and the outer ring of Birmingham constituencies provided that the Boundary Commission's proposals are accepted.
It is rather different from Meriden where, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Boundary Commission, in its Report imply that Meriden, even after redistribution, might have to be reviewed under Section 2(3) of the 1949 Act. This is not the same situation as in Birmingham, where, I agree, after the redistribution, there is considerable hope that there will then be reasonable stability in sizes of constituency electorates. But this is no excuse for leaving Ladywood and Northfield in their present shape with this enormous disparity.
I believe that "waiting for Maud" is an extremely threadbare excuse in the overwhelming majority of cases. As we have said constantly, it is no excuse for postponing general redistribution. One has only to look at a large number of particular cases to see how threadbare is this excuse, and nowhere more than in the West Midlands. Let the Under-Secretary once again look at the map. Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield could certainly be redistributed without interfering with Maud or prejudging what is contained in Maud.
However, I would agree that to redistribute small areas without considering the whole of a wider area is unsatisfactory, and if the Under-Secretary of State would look at the West Midlands as a whole he would see that the redistribution proposals of the Boundary Commissioners

virtually do not effect the Maud proposal for unitary area 28. That is to say, there need be absolutely no prejudging of what Maud recommends for Warwickshire.
To be strictly accurate, if Maud were accepted there would have to be a small alteration on either side of the County Borough of Solihull—nothing more. But when one looks at the new map proposed by Maud, one sees that Maud is no valid excuse at all for not proceeding to a redistribution of the West Midlands area.
In the light of the evidence I have given to the Committee as to the position of the Borough of Meriden, the disparity of constituency electorates in Birmingham and the fact that ever since 1962 ward and constituency boundaries have failed to coincide, I submit that this is an area in which the Government should do the right thing, and should do it at once. We intend to press these proposals by all possible means as ones that should be implemented without, delay.

Mr. Roebuck: The arguments advanced by the Opposition could be summarised by saying, "Whatever happens as a result of this, whatever other boundaries are cut across, the recommendations of the Commission should be carried out forthwith." I support my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench in resisting the proposals.
I am fortified in thinking that I have a good case by some words of Sir Winston Churchill in 1948, when he was the right hon. Member for Woodford. When I sought to address the Committee a little earlier and produced evidence by Sir Winston Churchill on this aspect of the matter, it did not appear to be conclusive to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can only hope they will find the argument a little more convincing if I quote Churchill's actual words:
I well remember in my youth seeing the placards, One man, one vote,' to which the answer was nut up, 'One vote, one value, too.' Of course, in regard to one vote, one value,' there can only be an approximation. It can only arise out of the process of gradual improvement, because of the rights of Scotland, and Northern Ireland and Wales, because of the sparsely inhabited districts, and because of the need not to cut needlessly by Redistribution Bills across the entities and historic continuity or boundaries of particular constiuencies. But we are all agreed that this process should be constant and active."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 858–9.]


Sir Winston's words on that occasion have a direct application to the business before the Committee today. What he was saying was that it is all very well to go for the mathematical or arithmetical approach, but there are other things to be considered in relation to constituencies. One is to have regard for the historic continuities and the boundaries.
If some of the aspects of the Redcliffe-Maud Report are accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is ridiculous to suggest that we should now immediately start carving up constituency boundaries. If we accept the philosophy behind that, we would again have to redraw constituencies. This would be a waste of time and would lead to great confusion among the electors.
I want to refer to the Amendment which deals with the constituency of Huyton. [HON. MEMBERS: "Pronounce it properly."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite have such an opposition to the constituency that I can well understand the hurt they feel if its name is mispronounced.
The underlying reason for the Amendment was well brought out in an intervention by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). My hon. Friend the Member for Luton accused the Opposition of feeling spiteful about this constituency in Lancashire. Up popped the hon. Member for North Fylde and said, "No, we are not spiteful about the constituency; we are spiteful about the Member who sits for the constituency".
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) talks all the time about gerrymandering. However, hon. Members will recall that he used to legislate in another place without being elected by anyone.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman had any political recollection, he would know that that was because I was sent there by Mr. Attlee against my will.

Mr. Roebuck: I have a good recollection of that incident. The right hon and learned Gentleman was not sent there by my late noble Friend Lord Attlee, but because of the hereditary

system. He did not try to oppose the hereditary system. It was a right hon. Member on this side who was sent to the other place because of the hereditary system, who refused to go, and who fought and changed the system. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now so concerned for democracy, he should tell us why he did not fight, instead of going willingly.

Mr. Hogg: I chose to obey the law, instead of defying it. That is why.

Mr. Roebuck: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The debate is getting a little wide of the Amendments.

Mr. Roebuck: Mr. Gourlay, before bringing the debate back within the rules of order, perhaps I might be permitted this final comment. My right hon. Friend the Member who now represents Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) did not defy the law. He sought to have it changed. I hope that in future the right hon. and learned Gentleman will try to follow the good example of constitutionalists on this site and not sit there "chuntering into his beard" and periodically accusing the Government of gerrymandering.
To get back to that more commonsense corner of Lancashire called "Hoyton" [HON. MEMBERS: "Huyton."]which is splendidly represented by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who will continue to represent it for many years, just as he will continue to occupy No. 10 Downing Street for many years, it is nonsense to suggest that even if the constituency were redistributed on the lines suggested by the Opposition, that would make any difference to its representation in this House.
It could be argued that the very suggestion reinforces the view of the hon. Member for North Fylde that the Amendment is the result of personal spite against the Prime Minister—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is a plot to get rid of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover).

Mr. Roebuck: If it is, it appears to have succeeded. We hope that he will be quickly restored to us. We all enjoy his speeches, especially late at night, when we are trying to sleep.
However, if the Amendment were accepted, it would make no difference to my right hon. Friend's constituency. That shows that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are consumed with spite, envy and malice. That is no good reason for legislating.
What is the reason for their spite? Is it because they do not have a leader? Is it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) suggested, that they had an election, found themselves with a Jonah, and are now looking for a whale? If that is so, it would have been more logical for them to have tabled an Amendment affecting the Bexley constituency, possibly seeking—

Mr. William Molloy: I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to be fair to the Opposition. Would not he agree that it is not a question of their not having a leader, but that they have more than one, which makes it difficult for hon. Members on this side to know who is Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Roebuck: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) must not attempt to lead his hon. Friend astray. This has nothing to do with the Amendment.

12 m.

Mr. Roebuck: The suggestion is that I might take the road to Wolverhampton, but I shall resist that. There is something in what my hon. Friend says when we know that, eventually, the leader of the party opposite absorbs ideas from north of the Trent. I think that Wolverhampton is north of the Trent. Anyway, I do not think that we should legislate as a result of the spite of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, as a result of their not having a leader.
They could have elected the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. After all, he gave up his coronet and came back to us. He sought democratic election, which is a first-class thing. Any step which could persuade the right hon. and learned Gentleman to become a democrat is to be welcomed. For those reasons, I do not think that it is asking too much of the Committee not to legislate along those lines.
I come now to another of the Amendments referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts. This is an extraordinary Amendment, because it seeks to give people votes in two places. I do not want to offend hon. Members for representing Northern Ireland constituencies, but many of my hon. Friends, particularly those representing Liverpool constituencies, will know of the old Irish saying that people should vote early and vote often. I am surprised that this is not added at the end as a sort of injunction: "You will now vote in Linslade and elsewhere, and please vote early and vote Conservative".
It is an impertinence for the Opposition to come forward and present us with one Amendment which, admittedly and avowedly, is inspired by spite and another which is so slipshod that it gives people votes in two places. The Opposition are presenting a complete nonsense. I hope that the Amendments will be voted down, and the sooner the better.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am sure that the Committee will not be surprised to hear that I do not propose to follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). However, I found his contribution as irrelevant as any that I have ever heard him make, but perhaps not quite as offensive as most of his speeches.
I come back to the various Amendments with which we are dealing, particularly those relating to the North-West of England.
I should like, first, to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), at the end of his speech. He seemed to object strongly that we on this side have repeatedly attacked the Home Secretary for gerrymandering on the Bill. He seemed to think that this was an unfair charge.
If the Government choose to ignore the impartial recommendations of the Boundary Commission and, instead, pick and choose the alterations which they will make in boundaries, they must not be surprised if they are accused of gerrymandering. If there is an explanation other than that of political expediency or of gerrymandering which brings the Home Secretary to this decision, it is surprising that


he does not wish to justify it in debate. If the right hon. Gentleman had any justification for the various reasons why the recommendations and Amendments put forward by this side should not be accepted, he could have justified them in debate rather than choose to rely upon a Guillotine to avoid that justification.
I turn to those seats in the North-West with which the Boundary Commission has dealt. I wish to deal particularly with the two Amendments relating to Liverpool and Manchester. The Home Secretary made what seemed an incredibly foolish intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor), when he asked how, in Amendment No. 72, we could possibly propose to deal only with five Manchester seats when there were eight Manchester seats. The answer is quite simple: the Boundary Commission recommended alterations in only five of those seats, and not in the other three. Therefore, it is wholly consistent with the Commission's proposals to recommend changes in those five seats, and not to recommend changes in any of the others, and the same applies to Liverpool.
Why have the Government chosen to ignore those parts of the Commission's report which deal with changes in boundaries in Liverpool and Manchester? The Home Secretary cannot rely on Redcliffe-Maud, because the seats in Manchester are not only in the same metropolitan area, but in the same metropolitan district, and, therefore, even if Redcliffe-Maud is brought in in its present form that can have no effect on the Commission's proposals for Manchester.
The proposal was that because of the drop in population in Manchester in recent years that city should no longer have nine seats, but only eight. The same applies to Liverpool. The recommendation, again, was that because of the overall drop in population, rather than have nine seats, Liverpool should have only eight.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals would extend the boundaries of Liverpool. On that basis it would mean that we would be altering the Parliamentary boundaries at this stage, and we would

have to look at the position again in the light of the Maud proposals.

Mr. Carlisle: I think that I am right in saying that even the unitary authority within the Liverpool area is slightly extended, but these are small matters on the periphery which can, if necessary, be dealt with by later changes. What are not affected are the Commission's recommendations for reducing the nine seats in Manchester and Liverpool to eight. One is driven to the conclusion that the only possible reason for ignoring those recommendations is that in both cases it would mean the removal of one Labour seat. That is the only reason that one can assume, until one gets some justification from the Home Secretary, which he has so far not chosen to give, for the Government's decision.
The position suggested for Manchester is, roughly, the amalgamation of the Exchange and Cheetham divisions. They were last altered in 1954. At that time the Cheetham division had 53,000 electors, and the Exchange division had the same number. Over the intervening years the numbers have dropped, and now the Exchange division is down to 18,309, and Cheetham is down to 30,079. The Commission recommended the amalgamation of those two divisions.
In 1955, Liverpool, Exchange, had 55,000 electors, while the Liverpool, Scotland division had 56,000 electors. Now both divisions have just over 30,000 electors. The Commission recommended that Scotland and Exchange should be amalgamated into a seat to be called Scotland Exchange, but, again, this is being ignored.
If the Government choose to ignore the Commission's recommendations in this way, they cannot be surprised to hear the cry made against them that they are choosing to gerrymander. The Home Secretary says that Redcliffe-Maud is the reason for the delay, but he must realise that the earliest possible moment in which, under his proposals, the recommendations of the Boundary Commission which are not being implemented now can be implemented is 1976. So for at least two elections we are continuing, through the Bill, the wide discrepancies that exist in seats such as Manchester, Exchange, on the one hand, and Huyton, on the other.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Member, but is it not equally true that if this time factor were correct—I am not certain that it is, but I accept the hon. Member's premise for the sake of argument—by the time we had reached 1976 both in the Exchange division and the Scotland division of Liverpool—because the re-entry of population into the centre of the city—it could well be that there was an even bigger electorate than at present?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member knows Liverpool better than I do, but since it now has a Conservative council some rebuilding may have been done in that city. Whether or not that be right, if, in 1976, the figures show that another redistribution is required we shall be a further seven years beyond now, and ready for another redistribution. What is wrong is deliberately to extend that period of time, with the grave discrepancies that exist between the size of the constituencies.
I do not know what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) may feel, but I am surprised that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt) will wish to be thought of in this House as representing Mr. Callaghan's rotten boroughs—because that is what they will be.
I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Walton. If the party which he supports chooses to ignore the impartial recommendation of the Boundary Commission and continue, apparently to its political advantage, discrepancies in the existing electorates which will be carried on during the next 10 years or so, it cannot be surprised if the cry of gerrymandering is heard, and unless it can justify its argument it will be shown clearly that that cry is true.

Mr. Will Griffiths: I thought that we would hear the name of the Manchester, Exchange division from time to time during this stage of our proceedings. I well understand the Opposition's interest in the division.
I want to refer to their charge of gerrymandering and to the question of the

proper representation of the people by Members of Parliament. From 1918, when the Exchange constituency of Manchester was first formed, until 1945 it was constantly represented by either a Conservative or a Liberal Member. The reason was that we had plural voting. We had the business vote. I do not recall that in those days we had any great demand from hon. Members opposite for the doctrine of "one man, one vote"; indeed, when I first came into the House we had university seats.
Hon. Members opposite will remember how they argued then what an affront it was to democratic practices to deal with the university seats. But most objective observers today would say that that redistribution was to the disadvantage of the Labour Party. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) used exactly the same words then about the gerrymandering Labour Party using the Bill to their advantage—as did Sir Winston Churchill. No one could possibly make that accusation now.

12.15 a.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: That example could come under the heading of gerrymandering, because Mr. Speaker's Conference of those days recommended that the university seats should be retained, and the Labour Party gerrymandered by going against Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Griffiths: This is a gift from the gods, that there is a Conservative Member—the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls)—who today, in 1969, regrets the departure of the university seats, at the very moment when the Opposition are accusing us of having impure thoughts about our election.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Peterborough was regretting that a Government in power should disregard the impartial report of Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Griffiths: I must part company with the hon. Member. I have never believed that the House of Commons should surrender its autho-ity to any outside body. Certainly, there should be representations and objective references, but the ultimate decision in a free society must rest with the elected assembly, with this House.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me. It is true that, in 1948, I accused the then Labour Government and the Home Secretary of gerrymandering the constituencies. I was referring to the creation of 17 new urban seats, contrary to the findings of the Boundary Commission, by the then Home Secretary in response to pressure from the back benchers of his own party. And I have no reason to regret my charge.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right, because I took the trouble to read his speech before referring to him. But, however much he regretted it then, that does not alter the fact that every objective assessor and so-called psephologist has decided that, on balance, the 1948 redistribution was unfavourable to the Labour Party. Bearing in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's recorded objections, and remembering the history, we are entitled to consider with some objectivity what the Opposition are saying now—

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. What happened was that, owing to swing against the Labour Party, engendered by its deplorable record, it lost the new seats. That does not alter the dishonesty of creating them.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an endearing senior Member of the House.
I want to spend little time on this point and to revert to Manchester, but it is a fact, and he should know it, that in the 1951 General Election the total vote of the Labour Party was the highest in its history, exceeding the total vote cast for the Conservative Party—and yet the Labour Party lost the election. Does not that suggest to any reasonable observer that the constituency boundaries were weighted in favour of the Conservative Party?

Mr. Hogg: No, it does not. It means only that the seats in which Labour Party candidates won were won by larger majorities than those in which Conservative Party candidates won. That point was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) in our first debate this afternoon.

Mr. Griffiths: That was a very interesting exchange. Perhaps we could pursue it a little later, elsewhere, when we meet from time to time.
I return to the argument of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that the Redcliffe-Maud Report would have no effect on Parliamentary redistribution in Manchester. He knows the city very well and he knows that the borough boundaries, for example, between Salford and Stretford, are hopelessly entwined. Even a Mancunian is in some doubt whether he is in the City of Salford or the Borough of Stretford, and he has to remind himself when he crosses the border.
The sensible proposals of Redcliffe-Maud mean that the Manchester metropolitan area will include such neighbouring boroughs as Stretford, Salford. Swinton, Pendlebury and Eccles—and others. It will give a total population of about 900.000. Clearly, within that conurbation we shall have much more sensibly drawn Parliamentary constituencies than we have today. Anybody who knows the area knows that the boundaries raise the most absurd anomalies, to the inconvenience of all parties concerned.
We should look at Parliamentary redistribution in that context, but I am the last to deny that I have a rather small electorate. That is due to a successful slum clearance programme. The hon. Member for Runcorn gave the figures. But there is also redevelopment. I refer to three Manchester constituencies in which clearance and redevelopment have been taking place. These are Cheetham, Ardwick—I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) is unwell and unable to be here —and my constituency. What has taken place is astonishing.
I have armed myself with the Registrar General's estimates of population. While I agree that these are not electoral figures, they show the fluctuation of populations in the centres of great cities, of which Manchester is a reasonable example.
For the three constituencies of Ardwick, Cheltenham and Exchange the estimated population in mid-1966 was 175,689. It is estimated that at the end of this year the figure will be 139,068. However, we have the astonishing estimate that by the end of 1970, that figure


will have risen to 155,800, an increase in one year of 16,732; and the increase in population in the coming year in the Exchange constituency is expected to be 8,700. Even so, I will not be overburdened and I hope that more people will come into my constituency.
As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said the other day, we cannot regard the present vast areas of desolation in the centres of our great cities as a permanent feature of society. The population in the cities is fluctuating enormously and the figures I have given show that trend. While there is no danger of the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange having to share the burdens carried by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman), the situation is not as bad as some hon. Members have suggested.
The hon. Member for Runcorn said that the electorate of Manchester, Exchange numbered 18,000. In fact, it is 20,000 and it is going up. I am not boasting about these figures, but we should get them right.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman mentioned this matter to me the other day and I said that if I got a chance I would refer to his constituency. The figure I gave was obtained from the Library as being the 1969 figure. I have seen the same figure quoted on several occasions, and not the one which he says is the correct figure.
However, would the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, would he not agree that the Boundary Commission is required to look at the facts as they are and not as they may be at a future date? Secondly, with the new town of Leyland—irrespective of what may happen in his constituency—is not the electorate of Manchester likely to decline, meaning that a ninth seat cannot be justified?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not complain about the hon. Gentleman quoting figures for my constituency. I just want him to know that he is wrong. I appreciate that he must go by the figures given to him from the sources available to him.

Mr. Waddington: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I am not talking about the Midlands.

Mr. Waddington: Let us have the official figures.

Mr. Griffiths: Whatever differences the hon. Member for Runcorn and I may have about statistics, we are not talking about the Midlands. We are discussing an area about which we know.

Mr. Waddington: I have the figures with me.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member for Runcorn obtained figures from the Library and quoted them in good faith. I assure him that they are wrong. That is what I am saying. I was saying that this sympathy is simply an illustration of the growth of a constituency where one can envisage the consequences of Redcliffe-Maud.
12.30 a.m.
I would like to come to the other point about the declining population of Manchester as a whole and my answer to that is that the geographical boundaries are not a permanency if we envisage the local government structure into which they must be fitted. That is what the Home Secretary is saying. The constituencies must be related to the new local government arrangements which will emerge. I can see nothing disreputable about that argument at all. It is a perfectly reputable and defensible argument.
I conclude as I began, by saying I hope that, at least, we have done a little to retrieve the reputation of those of us who represent small constituencies, and to assure the hon. Member for Runcorn that I have not the slightest desire to regard him as the representative of a rotten borough. At the same time, it does not lie in the mouths of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, with their record of plural voting, university seats, and their attitude to previous redistributions, to make sort of charges against this side of the Committee which they have made tonight.

[MR. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair]

Mr. Christopher Chataway: I thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. William Griffiths) was extremely unconvincing when he sought to rehearse the argument about waiting for Redcliffe-Maud, but it seemed to me that he spoke


with more conviction when putting forward an argument which we have not heard from the Front Bench opposite; and that is that the Boundary Commission is unfair to the Labour Party.
The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) said that he wanted no Boundary Commission, but wanted things fixed by the Government of the day. At least that was an interesting argument, and I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite should use it; and I say that because the excuses put forward from their own Front Bench have not exactly persuaded the country. I have yet to see a single independent commentator who has even begun to believe what the Front Bench opposite is saying. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right, I can think of The Guardian, which is not always a loyal supporter of the Conservative Party, speaking now of gerrymandering; and the Observer, which does not always espouse the Conservative cause, says that it is gerrymandering.
So hon. Members opposite are casting about for something new, and what has been said tonight amounts to arguing that the Government of the day should be allowed to do exactly what they like in the matter of fixing boundaries, and there is no room at all for any independent tribunal.

Mr. Will Griffiths: That is certainly not my case. What I say is that, whatever Parliament decides to do in appointing such bodies as the Boundary Commission, the ultimate decision—whatever may be the recommendations of that body—in accepting or rejecting that advice, must rest with the House of Commons.

Mr. Chataway: That is, then, if the Government do not agree with the referee, they will reject his ruling.
I am tempted to follow one or two of the earlier remarks about the constituency of Huyton, but out of regard for the delicate feelings of the Home Secretary, I will not tread that ground, because all of us will have been moved by the outraged loyalty of the Home Secrtary to the Prime Minister and the very real anguish and grief with which he protested that there was a sense of personal spite towards the Prime Minister on this side of the Committee.
I want to concentrate on one area where the Boundary Commission's recommendations are manifestly superior to those of the Bill and where not one of the excuses advanced by the Home Secretary will withstand scrutiny for a moment. I refer to West Sussex, where the Boundary Commission proposes that there should be created one extra constituency and where the Bill proposes that there should be created on extra constituency.
The difference, however, is that under the Commission's proposals three constituencies would produce four, while under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals two constituencies would produce three. It may be said that there does not seem to be anything manifestly unreasonable about that. However, under the Commission's proposals the three constituencies which are to spawn another will produce four roughly equal constituencies drawn in a way which respects the character of the area and which has found general favour.
Under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, two constituencies are to be divided up to produce a third, with the effect that one other, my own constituency of Chichester, will be substantially larger than the other three. The largest, Chichester, is left untouched, while the other three will be on average about 20,000 constituents smaller.
Why would the right hon. Gentleman propose this? Hon. Members opposite would probably concede that, other things being equal, as long as it did not harm the Labour Party, they were not averse to having constituencies of roughly equal size and were, therefore, predisposed towards the recommendations of the Commission. Why does the right hon. Gentleman seek to alter the Commission's recommendations in this area and propose that only two constituencies should be taken and divided into three? It is nothing to do with Redcliffe-Maud.

Mr. Roebuck: Julius Caesar.

Mr. Chataway: We have many Roman remains, but it has nothing to do with Julius Caesar, although it has as much to do with Julius Caesar as with Redcliffe-Maud.
Neither set of alterations would be affected by any decisions likely to be taken as a result of the Redcliffe-Maud


Report under which there would be no proposals for boundary alterations needing greater revision after the implementation of the Boundary Commission's proposals than after implementing the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.
Would there be a ripple effect? We have heard a great deal from the Home Secretary about the ripple effect.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman has made great play about gerrymandering, but he is now deploying the one case which he knows all about and where there is not a ha'porth of gerrymandering.

Mr. Chataway: Perhaps the Under-Secretary will contain himself patiently. I was hoping that he might be able to produce some justification for the argument that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals were leading him and his right hon. Friend to make these manifestly inferior proposals.
I do not believe that the Minister would be able to justify the suggestion that there would be a ripple effect on other constituencies. There is no other constituency affected, not in Hampshire, not in Surrey, not in East Sussex. Are there any ragged edges? Conceivably, with the help of his Department, he might be able to find a drafting mistake here and there, which may mean that half a dozen electors are not included, but I doubt it.
Here is a self-contained set of proposals, recommendations of the Boundary Commission which could be implemented and which are obviously preferable to the hasty, makeshift suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. The Under-Secretary asks why should the Commission have done it, and put forward a proposal that was obviously inferior if there was no electoral advantage. There could be an electoral advantage. It may be coincidence, but in this area there is Crawley, which contains a substantial number of Labour voters, or, to be more accurate, which used to contain a large number of Labour voters.
It has a population of 39,000 and is in the constituency of Horsham. Take three constituencies, as the Boundary Commission did, Horsham, Chichester and Arundel and Shoreham, and make four constituencies out of them. Then,

clearly, the 39,000 labour stronghold will count for rather less. But if we keep one constituency, Chichester, much larger than the others, then make the other three where two were before, as proposed by the Home Secretary, the 39,000 bulk much larger within a smaller constituency.

Mr. Callaghan: That is very tortuous. If I wanted to gerrymander I would do it in a far more efficient way than that.

Mr. Chataway: I am sorry to have touched the right hon. Gentleman on what is obviously a sore point—his efficiency in gerrymandering. I am at a loss to know what other explanation there could be for putting forward a proposal of this kind.

Mr. Callaghan: Because there are two contiguous constituencies of a very large size.

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman has not taken the point. There are three constituencies there, which are contiguous, from which he could make the extra constituency, as the Commission proposes. Why take the two in this way? I will willingly give way again—

Mr. Callaghan: Because there must be a pattern—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Do you want me to answer the point or do you not'? If so, shut up, then.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to other hon. Members and not to the Chair when he said that.

Mr. Callaghan: I was not referring to you, Mr. Jennings. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) always provokes when he sits there and shouts from the back benches.
There must be a pattern in the redistribution that has to take place and this is an example of not picking and choosing. Any hon. Member can pick and choose particular illustrations that will suit his point. What has happened here is that we are following a pattern throughout. It so happens that the two constituencies there could have become three if I had chosen to try to do something different, but I was following a consistent pattern.
Perhaps some time hon. Gentlemen might try to concede that there is something in the case besides their consistent arguments of pure gerrymandering and spite.

Mr. Chataway: If we are to concede that, we need to have a stronger argument than that. To say that, in his picking and choosing, the right hon. Gentleman is providing a pattern, is stretching belief beyond breaking point. What he has done is to take three pairs of constituencies and one single constituency outside London. What kind of pattern is that? Why not take one single constituency, two pairs and one trio of constituencies? It is just as much of a pattern. In this group of constituencies, as in a number of others mentioned by my right hon. and hon. Friends today, there is absolutely clear evidence—

Mr. Callaghan: Of what?

Mr. Chataway: —of political motivation in the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: Rubbish.

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman may keep up his spirits by saying "Rubbish", but I believe that if he starts to discuss this matter outside the House and outside his band of devoted supporters he will find few people who believe that his excuse of waiting for Redcliffe-Maud is the reason for the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman said that if an argument were put forward for any of these Amendments which he found acceptable which did not have a ripple effect, which did not lead to increased difficulties as a result of Redcliffe-Maud and which did not have ragged edges, he would accept it. I hope that Amendment No. 20, which I have dealt with, will on those grounds be accepted by him.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I want to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) concerning the proposals for Manchester and the greater conurbation area affected within a population of something like 2 ¼ million people. The constituency which I represent—Salford, West—has a declining population of, at present, 46,000

electors and the figure is declining each year. The same applies to Salford, East.
The interesting this is that the Boundary Commission made no recommendation regarding our constituencies. The reasons for that are very simple. It is not possible to go beyond the present boundaries of a county borough and the surrounding county councils. Therefore, the constituencies within the South-East Lancashire conurbation cannot be rewritten until we get widespread local government reform. That is the whole basis.
If the Boundary Commission recommendations were enacted in their entirety, we would not have an equally based constituency system throughout the country. We would still be left with constituencies of 80,000-plus and constituencies, like mine, of 44,000 or 45.000 because local government reform has not taken place.
The point made by the right hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), that, even so, within that conurbation area, with the new cities outside, and so on, there would be a declining number of Members in the Manchester conurbation, is quite correct, but the boundaries cannot be rewritten efficiently and correctly, taking into account Stretford, Salford, Manchester and the other surrounding areas, until we have the Greater Manchester area where we can go across the current boundaries, which are bedevilled by county boroughs, cities, counties, urban districts and all the rest. The whole thing is nonsense.
I want to know what is so sacrosanct about the Boundary Commission, a nonelected body, which, in effect, as I have tried to show, cannot operate in a fully democratic manner until we have local government reorganisation. This is affecting the large conurbations outside London. We have the reform in London. My right hon. Friend has fully implemented the recommendation of the Boundary Commission.
We did not hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) remonstrating against that, because the G.L.C. wanted it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said is part of the fiddle. He does not separate this from his criticism. Oh, no. It is a blanket criticism of the whole of the proposals. About like one-eighth


of the population of the country is excluded entirely—

Mr. William Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that this change will give Bexley fewer votes than has my hon. Friend's constituency?

Mr. Orme: I do not know about that, but I understand that the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) is looking for a fresh seat.
Anybody would think that the Boundary Commission's proposals which were presented to my right hon. Friend were a hard and fast set of rules for all time. We have a continuously moving population; we have new developments; we have the development which is taking place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange, and in my own, and within many other central areas of population. What my right hon. Friend is doing is implementing proposals which necessarily need to be implemented at present. He is saying that the Redcliffe-Maud Report should be implemented as soon as possible. [Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has had his turn and should rise if—

Mr. Roebuck: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member has got anything to say, let him rise in proper fashion.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. I rose in what I understood to be a proper manner. If, Mr. Jennings, you are complaining because I allowed a sound to emit from me in response to a noise which came from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), across the Chamber, and if I am required to sit here and to utter nothing in reply, then I shall have to consider the position very carefully.

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I also have to consider the position very carefully. The hon. Member has been long enough a Member of the House of Commons to know that neither he nor any hon. Member opposite him is entitled to make rude remarks, or any other remarks, in a recumbent position. There is a proper way to make interventions.

Mr. Orme: I think—

Mr. Roebuck: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I do not know what the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) is trying to do, whether he is making an intervention with the acquiescence of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who has the Floor, or whether he is rising to address me on some other point of order. I would be glad to have clarification.

Mr. Roebuck: I will give that instantly. I was assuring my hon. Friend that I was not in a recumbent position, nor had I been in a recumbent position, but that in a sedentary position I was listening to what he had to say, and with the greatest interest. I hope that I shall not be interrupted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend very much—

Mr. Daniel Awdry: If I might intervene while the hon. Gentleman is collecting his thoughts after that last interruption, he is saying that the Government are justified in not implementing parts of the Boundary Commission Reports until they have the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. If that is the correct attitude, why did they let the Boundary Commission go on year after year with its work? They must have known of the fact several years ago. Would it not have beer fairer to have told the Boundary Commission four years ago to stop all that work?

Mr. Orme: Nobody could have anticipated what the Redcliffe-Maud Report would suggest.
The point that I want to put to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and his party—I address it as much to the right hon. and learned Member as to anybody because he will obviously be leading for the Opposition on this—is whether his party, when the time comes to discuss the Redcliffe-Maud Report and its application and implementation, will press for the early implementation of the report or will it hold it up and filibuster it, as many of his hon. Friends will try to do.


I believe that my right hon. Friend and the Government will be under pressure from this side, in the interests of local government and efficiency, to ensure that the Redcliffe-Maud Report is implemented as quickly and as fully as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The scoffing over this is very interesting. If the report is to be implemented—I am talking not about detail, but about the larger units—we can either get down to it as a Parliament and implement the major reforms that are needed in local government and thereby allow the Boundary Commission to redefine the boundaries in a way that will be acceptable to Parliament as a whole, or frustrate the implementation of local government reform, which I fear the Conservatives, despite their fine words, will endeavour to do when the time comes. It will be very interesting to see their reaction and attitude to the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals or the principle of them.
I believe that it will be possible to implement these proposals in a much shorter period than has been envisaged. The uncertainty that will be created in local government and in the large conurbations which many of us represent will be very frustrating both to local authorities if we as a Parliament do not get down early and quickly to resolving the matter—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) knows full well that he cannot intervene from beyond the Bar of the House.

Mr. Orme: I thank you, Mr. Jennings for your protection.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order, Mr. Jennings. Is it possible for any hon. Member of the Committee to see beyond the Bar? Can you explain in some detail what this extraordinary manifestation is? Is it right, as I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), that the Leader of the Opposition is causing a disturbance?

The Temporary Chairman: That is far from being a valid point of order. There is no sense in it.

Mr. Orme: The point about the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud Report is a very serious and valid on. It particularly affects those of us from large conurbations that are involved, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), and many other constituencies in Liverpool, Birmingham and elsewhere.
We are saying that the redrawing of the boundaries as recommended by the Boundary Commission is insufficient, inadequate and not properly representational of the areas. I defy the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone to deny that those facts are correct. The argument about the size of the constituencies, on which so many crocodile tears are shed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, is the biggest piece of hypocrisy that this Parliament has seen.
1.0 a.m.
We have never heard these arguments about Northern Ireland and Rhodesia. This point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and I was interested to hear him do so; he has never mentioned it before. The party opposite has been whipping up a campaign of hysteria, using words like "gerrymander", with the help of some newspapers. There has never been such a one-sided presentation of an issue than there is at present in the Press. It is as if hon. Gentlemen opposite are frightened to mention the case in its entirety and hear it properly argued.
We should not be put off by these attacks. We have nothing of which to be ashamed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am prepared to defend this issue. The more hypocrisy shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite the more I am convinced that we are right. If they were to call in aid another place, an unelected Chamber, I would welcome the confrontation. If the Boundary Commission cannot dictate to Parliament, we are certainly not having another place dictating to the elected Chamber.
If my right hon. Friend implements the London decisions, refers constituencies back to the Boundary Commission


for the redrawing of boundaries, and defers implementation so that the Redcliffe-Maud Report can be implemented, to speak of that as gerrymandering is a load of nonsense. I hope the Committee will give its answer in the only way possible, by rejectng the Amendment.

Mr. Corfield: Whether or not one is ashamed depends on one's own standards. On that aspect, I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). He has made it abundantly clear, by drawing attention to the fact that an eighth of the population is excluded from the Bill because the Redcliffe-Maud's recommendations do not apply, that this could equally be done throughout the wider areas of the country to which they equally do not apply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and several of my hon. Friends have tabled Amendments covering areas to which Redcliffe-Maud has no application whatever. The most enlightening comment from the hon. Member for Salford, West was in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, "We waited until we saw what the Boundary Commission produced."
When we opened these debates the Home Secretary commented that some of the Amendments either excluded constituents in error or included them in more than one constituency. Whether or not that is true, it is no possible reason why these relatively minor matters could not be put right by the Government at a later stage or in another place, if they were minded to do so. Nor is it any argument for not considering on their merits the various Amendments which, through no fault of ours, we are forced to discuss together.
I suggest that Amendment No. 70 to which my hon. Friend for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has already spoken, falls into a category where Redcliffe-Maud has no application at all.
When the Home Secretary replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) he implied that all that was being asked was that she should fight the election on the present boundaries and that a change could be expected three or four years afterwards. Does

the right hon. Gentleman, or any member of the Front Bench with any experience of these matters, imagine that this enormous reform of local government, which has been described in this debate as the largest reform for a century, will be carried through quickly, will be bulldozed through irrespective of all the local reactions? I assure the Home Secretary, from my moderate experience of the 1958 Act at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and of the London Government Act, that local reactions to those modest proposals were very substantial.
Here we have a scheme to abolish the whole principle on which local government has been based in the past, namely, the distinction between rural and urban areas. It abolishes county councils, the one geographical unit to which people feel a local loyalty. It abolishes all the intermediate county districts to which, in the past, the countryman, because of the larger distance he had to travel, has looked for the most intimate of the personal services for which local government is responsible. It produces a massive problem of finding the proper terms on which surplus local authority personnel can be pensioned off or by which they can be found other jobs. It is a myth to think that all this can be done quickly.
The Home Secretary said to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton that all that really mattered was that she should fight the next election on the present boundaries. We are not concerned with fighting the next election on the present boundaries. We are concerned to serve our constituents decently, and there comes a time when sheer numbers makes this increasingly impossible.
We live in a time when there is more and more Government intervention in matters which concern the ordinary individual. Increasingly, one's postbag refers to matters to which the Member of Parliament is the only person to whom the individual can turn. The Member must look at their problems thoroughly and sympathetically. The problem concerns numbers and the character of the constituency. It is in the expanding constituencies that housing problems arise, that roads fail to keen up with houses, that schools fail to keep up with the children, and the rest of it.
It is not a question of the number of local authorities with whom one has to deal. The idea that constituency boundaries have to follow local authority boundaries is a convenience to Members of Parliament, but it has no relevance to the man in the street, and the contravention of it does not add greatly to the burden of Members of Parliament.
Replying to other Amendments, the Home Secretary said that in these areas the county boroughs and boroughs are recommended by Redcliffe-Maud to go into different units. There is no question of that happening in Bristol. I pressed him earlier to give a reason why, if he believes that Clause 1(3)(a) enjoins him to go ahead as soon as possible, he should put on the brake and not go on. He has not given us a reasonable answer.
Looking at a map of the Bristol area, it is clear that it would be quite impossible to implement a scheme which did not break the principle of Maud, and at the same time make irrelevant the proposals of the Boundary Commission. The Home Secretary and others referred to the ripple effect. As the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) said, the time to have thought about that was in 1966, when the Redcliffe-Maud Committee was set up. It must have been apparent then that if anything other than minor changes were to be made the recommendations of the one body were bound to cut across those of the other. Yet the Government allowed them to go on in parallel and, as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, they had to wait for the results to see what they looked like. Then they wonder why we suspect that there is some political motivation.
An hon. Member opposite made great play with the fact that this is a matter for the House of Commons because it affects the loyalties and relations between Members of Parliament and their constituencies. If that is so, the corollary is that time should have been allowed by the Government for hon. Members representing constituencies affected in different ways to put forward the views of their constituents. The fact that the Government have not done that is another measure of their integrity. It is the handling of the Bill, every bit as much as what is in it, that undermines my trust of the Home Secretary and the motives behind his proposals.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) surprised me when he said with great emphasis that, in his opinion, local government and local government boundaries had nothing to do with the drawing of Parliamentary boundaries. That was an astonishing statement, in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) earlier, pointing out that he himself supported the principle that boundaries for constituencies should be related to local government boundaries and, moreover, that it was included in the principal Act which he supported.

Mr. Corfield: I did not say that it had nothing to do with it—

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Corfield: I said that it was a convenience to Members of Parliament, but that it did not matter to the constituent. I do not think that it does. I believe the principle to be a sound one, but it is not an overriding one.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman will find, when he reads HANSARD tomorrow, that I quoted him correctly. I do not want to spend more time on that. I merely want to put on record the complete contrast between the argument put forward by the Opposition Front Bench and by the hon. Gentleman in his speech just now. The Opposition are utterly and completely unscrupulous in the way that they have put forward their opposition to the Bill. They have no regard for principle, fact or truth. It is a cheap propaganda match from beginning to end. We had an inadvertent example just now in the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South. A serious debate has been reduced to the level of a cheap propaganda match.
1.15 a.m.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) in his place, because he is one of the few hon. Gentlemen opposite who made a serious contribution to our debates on the Bill. I refer to what the hon. Gentleman said on 8th July. I know that his right hon. and hon. Friends become


nervous when I refer to his speech. On that occasion they tried to prevent me interrupting him to agree with him and to express my sympathy with his point of view. I hope that they will not try to prevent me referring to it now.
The hon. Member for Tavistock, in a very sincere speech, said:
In South Devon, we are hoping that whatever organisations consider the future of the area they will be able to take action relatively quickly so that conclusions may be reached so as to consolidate the views of people living in the area and make it possible for them to persuade the Government to include Tavistock within the economic circumstances prevailing in Plymouth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th July, 1969; Vol. 786. c. 1284.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to develop the point of his great anxiety. He said that Tavistock must be linked with and closely related to the Plymouth area. He was making a serious case on behalf of his constituents, of whom we have heard so much in these propaganda speeches but without any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite paying serious attention to their real interests. But the hon. Member for Tavistock did. He demanded a reorganisation in local government boundaries so that the benefits he wants for his constituents should come about. When I interrupted him, he did not disagree because he could not and did not want to. I pointed out that what the Government were proposing was directly in line with what the hon. Gentleman was demanding.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am grateful for the rendering of my speech, even if it totally contradicts the point that I made. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that my point was that the Boundary Commission's Report would have achieved exactly what we in South Devon wanted. This Government, with all the other ridiculous policy that they have applied to South Devon, have delayed and postponed the things that we in South Devon want.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman will not ride off as easily as that. For most of his speech he was not talking about anything to do with Parliamentary boundaries, but about local government and economic links. The hon. Gentleman's speech is on record and hon. Members can check it for themselves. That was what the hon. Gentleman was arguing about, and it would be wholly illogi-

cal to blame the delay in bringing about constituency boundary changes for not receiving the kind of local government and economic development area benefits that he wants for his area.
Whenever a real attempt is made to look at the Bill, not in terms of cheap political propaganda, we find there is an issue which should be seriously debated. That issue is: as we are looking forward to a period of considerable and radical change in local government arrangements, is it right to subject the country in this area to two upheavals and basic changes within four or five years, or is it right to wait until other changes have taken place?

Mr. Hordern: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. I shall give way to him in a moment.
This is a serious argument, because it has implications for local government, for economic development, and for national politics. We ought to discuss the matter calmly, because it is a serious problem, and one to which we ought to find a commonsense solution.
I do not expect the Redcliffe-Maud proposals—and this happens whenever a Royal Commission reports—to be accepted in full. Instead of some saying that the whole report will be implemented, and others saying that none of it will be implemented—I do not know whether any of it will be implemented—why not accept the commonsense view that the main principles may be accepted by the Government, but the details will have to be discussed and consultations will have to take place; that emendations will be made, perhaps by the local government associations, and perhaps, as a result of our experience, by various groups of specialists; that opinions will then crystalise, and then proposals will be made by the Government?
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier today, the first step will be to make a decision about the new local government boundaries. One thing about which we can be sure is that whatever proposals are accepted, and whatever changes are made, the picture at the end will be radically different from what it is today.

Mr. Hordern: The hon. Gentleman has very fairly, in his own way, questioned whether it is right for the Committee to accept two sets of changes in a relatively short space of time—the changes proposed by the boundary commission, and those proposed by Redcliffe-Maud. How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that in the Bill the Government are doing just that? The Government are proposing that the commission should issue a special report on my constituency and that of Arundel and Shoreham, both of which are directly affected by Redcliffe-Maud. The whole thing will have to be looked at again.

Mr. Mendelson: I think that there is a slight misunderstanding here.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will allow me to answer. I did not contrast Redcliffe-Maud with the proposed boundary changes. I said that it would be unwise to have two upheavals within four or five years.
I think that I have established that whatever emerges after the debate on the local government proposals, the position will be radically different from what we have today. Nobody can fail to accept that simple point. I hope that I can carry the Committee with me to this extent, that more than 200 constituencies will be radically affected by the changes. Surely it is reasonable for the Government to say that it is better to wait until that process has been completed before introducing the next changes in the political boundaries of the constituencies? This is a commonsense point and there is no politics in it whatsoever.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member has been describing what will happen. Does not he appreciate that he was describing a prolonged and difficult process, which will involve formidable changes in local government, described by his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on a previous occasion as the biggest changes for 100 years? During that time will not the disparities and the objectionable features of Parliamentary constituencies become much more pronounced?

Mr. Mendelson: I cannot address myself to the point about the nature of the timing, because we decided that in

Committee, on another Amendment. The hon. Member knows that I dealt with that point then. Now I repeat, in reply to his question, that whatever time scales we assume for these changes—and they will be important ones—the Home Secretary pointed out this afternoon that he expected us to have made very good progress by the early 1970s, and all talk about 1983 and 1984 is much piffle and propaganda. The time scale was indicated in a speech by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, and he is on record. That speech can be read tomorrow and it will be seen that he was quite precise in what he said.
I move from the point that I have established—which is a completely nonpolitical one—concerning good government and administration, to my next point, namely, the attitude that the House should adopt to a report by the Boundary Commission. There is no need to distract the Committee by making propaganda on this point. It has always been accepted doctrine by hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons that it is the House that must make the final decision. I carried the hon. Member with me this afternoon in a previous debate when I pointed out that this was the accepted doctrine.
It therefore follows that the Boundary Commission cannot be in a special position compared with a Royal Commission or other bodies appointed by the Government or the House to make reports and recommendations. The Boundary Commission must be in the same position as other bodies, because any other attitude would mean abandoning the essential constitutional doctrine that the final decision must be within the rights and powers of the House.
That being so, there can be no doubt the attack from the other side of the Committee has been wholly misdirected, because by that attack hon. Members opposite have started the process of undermining a constitutional doctrine which they had accepted. I see on the benches opposite several right hon. Gentlemen who belonged to the Administration when I was sitting on the Opposition benches and who accepted this doctrine publicly in their own Administration. They cannot get away from it. If that was the view they held then, why should they now attempt to


mislead us about the doctrine? They are on record as having supported that doctrine in the past. The Government and the right hon. Gentleman are not doing anything that departs from the essential principle of conduct that governed the previous Administration and is governing the conduct of this Administration.
I move now to the other half of the argument. If the Boundary Commission cannot have the final say, what is to be the relationship between the Government, the Commission and Parliament—that is, the precise circumstance that the implementation of the recommendations must be related to by the House, by the Government of the day, and by the circumstances of the time. The reason why the House of Commons must have the final decision is not a matter of form; it is a matter of good government and good constitutional practice. The Commissioners, who are working away on plans and proposals cannot, three or four years in advance, judge the precise administrative situation in which the country will find itself when the report is finally published and the House can pass judgment on it.
This is not a political matter; it is a matter of good government. If there is a prospect in the early 1970s of the essential changes in local government arrangements which we all agree must take place, if they are to be of a radical and revolutionary nature it cannot be left to the Commissioners, working on the details of constituency boundaries to make a decision for Parliament three years in advance as to what is good government and good constitutional practice.
1.30 a.m.
I cannot see how serious hon. Gentlemen could oppose this argument. They have always advanced it in the four Parliaments of which I have been a Member, and it is common ground.
My third and last point—[HON MEMBERS: "At last."] They will not be patient with me because I am producing a calmly-reasoned case and they do not like it. They would rather have a lot of shouting and paper throwing. I have only arguments, with which I intend to continue. My third and last point in this commonsense analysis deals with the choice of implementation which my right hon. Friend faced. Surely he had to

make a sensible division between that part of the work which affected London, where no change in local government boundaries is contemplated in the early 1970s, and the rest of the country, where changes are proposed. Surely that makes the action of the Government consistent.
Instead of this hot, blistering campaign of propaganda, the Opposition should have considered these arrangements practically for weaknesses to see whether it might be against the principles of good government to proceed in this way instead of trying to gain passing political capital. They must not kid themselves that they will mislead the public with this cheap campaign.
In conclusion, I react in the Sunday newspapers that the Tories are now employing a new public relations company instead of Prentis and Varley, who apparently did not serve them very well. I do not know whether this new company should take the blame for having suggested this daft campaign. I do not know whether it is true that the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he is using this company only for market research, or whether—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I am following this Second Reading speech with great care, but I am wondering how, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, it can be related to any one of the Amendments, and, if it can, to which one.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I am sure that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will help the Chair and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Mendelson: I said a moment ago that I was concluding in this point. I do not know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be so nervous about letting me conclude. In making these hot, blistering political charges, have they been advised by this new organisation? If they have, my advice to the Leader of the Opposition is to dismiss this firm in the next few weeks. It is a daft campaign, which will mislead no one and will not redound to the credit of the Opposition.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall be brief, because the Committee is in an intolerable position. The Government have used their majority to stifle our


debate. Such truncated time as we have been allowed has been taken up to a regrettable extent with speeches from the Government benches which have been farcical or incoherent, and sometimes both, and have culminated in the thoughts of the hon. Member for Penis-tone (Mr. John Mendelson) which were obviously designed to kill the debate stone dead.
I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 27, which deals in particular with Birmingham constituencies and especially with Ladywood. My reason for intruding into a territory which I admit is foreign to me is that I represent a constituency in the South of England which has at present over 85,000 electors, which is likely at the next election to have 95,000 electors and which at the General Election after that may well have 110,000–115,000 electors. By contrast, Ladywood has an electorate, I understand, of 18,000. I understand that the hon. Member who has the honour to represent it won his place in the House by polling 5,100 votes in a by-election. I once fought an election in which I polled nearly as many-4,500—and it won me a seat too— on Kent County Council.
I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Lawton) will not take offence if I say that his 5,000 votes, had he polled them in my constituency at the last election, would not have returned him to Parliament; they would have lost him his deposit. At the next election he could poll twice 5.000 in my constituency and still lose his deposit. I make these comments in no sense criticising the hon. Member but in an attempt—and I hope a relevant attempt—to illustrate the anomalies and the anachronisms which exist and which the Home Secretary, if he does not accept these Amendments, will be perpetuating.

Mr. Lubbock: rose—

Mr. Onslow: I do not wish to detain the Committee, and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will only make me angrier than I already am.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Is it not the custom of the House that one does not refer to an hon. Member in detail without first giving him notice and, secondly, that one does not refer

to an hon. Member who has not yet made his maiden speech and therefore has not the opportunity to reply?

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is quite in order to make a passing reference to other hon. Members and other constituencies.

Mr. Onslow: Were the electorate of that constituency nearer the norm, I should not need to refer to it.
I mentioned that I have an abnormally large number of constituents. I make no complaint about that. I am not anxious to part company with any of them, and I hope that I can serve them reasonably well. But the issue which we are debating ought not to be settled by the personal preferences of hon. Members, whether they retain the company of or part company with their present constituents; the Boundary Commission should have the final say in that, and all of us should be prepared to accept that the Boundary Commission serve a purpose which only they can serve as the custodians of the law.
Why, then, are we in this position, having these Amendments to this bad Bill, keeping us so late from our beds? Whose little gerrymander is it? I do not think we can blame the Government Chief Whip, who is only a clumsy apprentice in the cult of Parliamentary thuggee. Nor could we blame the Leader of the House—even if he were with us—for we know him only as an amiable cipher. Nor can we blame the Attorney-General, even if, after his attempt to differentiate between the way in which the present Report was laid and the way in which the last Report was laid, he can expect to be held in honour wherever hairs are split. The true reason why we are here and why we have these Amendments before us is the course of action which two men have chosen —the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. I do not give the Home Secretary the credit of supposing that the Bill is his own or that he has introduced it in defiance of a veto from higher up.
The Home Secretary comes before us as the custodian of law and order. But he speaks against these Amendments in the capacity of gamekeeper turned poacher. We need not be surprised at that, but we can regret it and comment


that the present ambition of the right hon. Gentleman appears to be to rehabilitate the Duke of Newcastle, hitherto famous as the biggest Parliamentary fixer in our history, just as the Prime Minister has rehabilitated Lord North.
When earlier the Prime Minister's constituency of Huyton was mentioned the Home Secretary sought to warn us off by suggesting that if we pursued the subject we would be guilty of a personal vendetta. My only comment on the subject is that I would be more convinced by his case for the Bill if Huyton was a constituency more closely approaching the norm.
My real complaint against the Prime Minister, as the co-author of this bad Bill, is that he is not simply afraid of the consequencies of redistribution in his own constituency. It is more serious than that. He is afraid of the consequences of redistribution according to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission throughout the country. This is, therefore, not a matter affecting one constituency but affecting the whole country,
Nor am I convinced by the arguments which the Prime Minister has sought to adduce to the effect that if the Boundary Commission's recommendations were followed there would be no advantage in favour of one party or another. It might have been more convincing if the reports to that effect, which the Prime Minister claims he has received, were on paper and available to hon. Members in the Library. Instead, however, the Prime Minister has shown that he is not prepared to trust the people. He has abused his high office to distort and devalue the franchise, just as the Home Secretary has abused his office to place his thumb on the scales of electoral justice for selfish political advantage.
These are the two men who keep us here tonight, who have presented this bad Bill to us and whom we must really blame. I find this conclusion inescapable, just as you may find it wrong of me to voice it, Mr. Gourlay. The actions taken by these two men amount to, and must be recognised as, the grossest political cowardice.
We find ourselves in this shocking situation, with democracy standing in danger, because we have a Prime Minister who, in the exercise of his democratic

responsibilities, has proved himself to be a coward and a Home Secretary who has shown himself, by the same token, to be a cheat.

Mr. Hamling: I will not follow the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in his hyperbole. Nor will I follow him into the gutter. I will refer briefly to Ladywood in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). It seems unfair to chide the Liberal Party with over-representation in Ladywood when one remembers how under-represented Liberal voters are and have been for the last 40 years in the House of Commons.
This brings me to one of the main points made in the debate so far, and particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), who until recently was a London hon. Member. He was at pains to talk generally of Conservative criticism. He found it singularly difficult to prove in the case of Sussex that there was no gerrymandering, especially when we have never had a Socialist elected for a county constituency in Sussex or in Surrey, since Adam was a lad. We are never likely to have that, and we are not likely to have a Socialist representing these toffee-nosed places.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Surely my hon. Friend has more faith in the British people than his remarks about Surrey and Sussex would lead us to believe. The day will come when even in rural Sussex this party will be well represented.

Mr. Hamling: Not at the next General Election; and it is the next election which we are being told is being gerrymandered. I know Sussex. I was in East Sussex supporting one of our people, so I am not afraid to go into the backward areas. I have fought more solid Tory seats than any person in this Chamber at the moment, and I have won one—and I shall hold it next time.

Mr. Chataway: I am pretty sure that the hon. Member is right. The party opposite will not win any seats in Sussex, but under the Home Secretary's proposals there would be a very small constituency in Sussex in which Crawley new town will bulk very large.

Mr. Hamling: That merely shows the inferiority complex of hon. Members of the party opposite, because in the past, they have always tried to tell us how the new towns have changed and become Tory supporting. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the new towns have seen the light and turned Tory and then crawl into the Chamber at this hour of the morning and talk about Crawley. The hon. Member is frightened of losing it.
What the party opposite is really complaining about is the fact that some of the older urban areas like Bristol, Liverpool, and Manchester will be over-represented as a result of the policy of the Home Secretary. I say that that comes a little ill from the party which for generations was wedded to the over-representation of the rural areas.

Mr. Hordern: I am sorry, but I missed the hon. Gentleman's point a couple of minutes ago which related to my constituency. I hasten to assure him that I acquitted the Home Secretary of any sort of gerrymandering in trying to win a seat in East Sussex.

Mr. Hamling: Then the hon. Member should get together with the new towns. The trouble is that he has lived for so long in London and been tarred by the brush of the previous hon. Member for Horsham that he sees chicanery behind every tree and has lived for a long time in the company of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)—and what he does not know about politics is not worth knowing—that he is suspicious of everything. Then, when he finds some honest, decent chaps like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) he finds things a little strange.
I come now to the main burden of some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite. It is that there is over-representation of some of the older urban areas. The problem of the drift of population cannot be resolved in Parliamentary terms until the Redcliffe-Maud proposals are put into operation. That is precisely what happened in London. The London Government Act was introduced by the Conservative Party to do precisely what my right hon. Friend wants to do for the urban areas.
I come to a major complaint against the Bill in connection with London. I have a bitter complaint about this. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has a constituency of 58,000 electors, below the English quota, and yet complains that his constituency is not being messed about. "One vote, one value", he says, and yet he has a constituency of 58,000 whereas in London, as a result of the work of the Boundary Commission which my right hon. Friend is implementing, there will be many constituencies with more than 70,000 electors. One vote, one value?
There will be many constituencies in London with an electorate of fewer than 45,000—St. Marylebone, 48,000; Surbiton, another Tory seat, 45,000; Bromley, Ravensbourne, 44,500, Bexley, Sidcup, 43,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Where is this representative of a rotten borough? Harrow, Central will have 45,000—all good Socialist seats !

Mr. Hogg: I was not aware that the borough of St. Marylebone was a good Socialist seat. It is a very good seat, but it will never be a Socialist seat.

Mr. Hamling: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should recognise irony even at seven minutes to two in the morning. I was about to come to some of the Tory seats—Hammersmith, North, 72,000; Fulham. 72,000; Brent-ford and Isleworth, 74.000; Southwark, 71,000; Peckham, 78,000. My right hon. Friend is in the infants' class when it comes to gerrymandering. What the Bill does is over-represent Tory voters in London and under-represent Labour voters—and hon. Members will not see that in The Times tomorrow.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Too late, anyhow.

Mr. Hamling: Nor will it be seen in the Evening News tomorrow.
Under the Bill, 11 seats in London will have less than 50,000 electors and 10 seats will have more than 70,000. So much for the one vote, one value from the Boundary Commission. Where is the one vote, one value in that?
Where is "one vote, one value" there, when there are 43,000 in Bexley and 78,000 in Peckham? It is almost twice as much. Then the Opposition have the cheek to talk about Huyton. One of the


central issues is the under-representation of the English vote. One of the major difficulties in the Boundary Commission set-up is the insistence that Wales and Scotland shall have a minimum number of seats. The result is that England has a maximum number. We have a large population in England, where the vote is 59,000. What is the quota in Wales, or Scotland? In Wales the quota is many thousands less than the quota for England. Where is the "one vote, one value" principle in this? This is what the Opposition say should take precedence over this Parliament.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The minimum number of seats for Wales and Scotland, which govern the quota, by a mathematical calculation, are set out in the Act of 1949 which the Government do not propose to alter. If the English representation had been equal in numbers, and I am not complaining, there would have been a Conservative Government far more often than there has been.

Mr. Hamling: All I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that he could not have had many more in the last 50 years. What he also cannot deny is that in every one of those Parliaments but two his party has been over-represented when one compares the votes with the seats. He knows that. They were even over-represented in 1964. It is only now, when we have a slight overrepresentation of Labour voters, that they start belly-aching. They want it for every General Election, not just nine out of ten. It is a fair comment to argue that in relation to the quotas, in relation to the principle of "one vote, one value", on which they are basing their campaign, England is under-represented.
We have had no such suggestion from the other side of the Committee, no suggestion that there should be a change in this relationship between votes in England and Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman now enumerating the reasons why the Home Secretary has not acted in this way?

Mr. Hamling: I would remind the hon. Member that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) have tabled a new Clause because

we do not like the scheme in London. We think that this is gerrymandering in favour of the Tory Party. We think it is unfair to the Labour Party, and I do not believe in being unfair to the Labour Party. It is poetic justice now and again to be unfair to the Tories, because the electoral system has been unfair to us for so long and it is a bit of a change to have the boot on the other foot. [Interruption.] That was not really intentional.
2.0 a.m.
It is fair to argue in debating the principles, that when the party opposite complain about unfairness in their parts of the country it is right that we on this side should point out to my right hon. Friend that he is being unfair to us. I am complaining about it, and it is right that we should make these complaints to offset the belly-aching from the party opposite. We have listened to them long enough on this and it is about time that the voice of London was heard instead of voices like that of the newcomer from West Sussex, the hon. Member for Chichester, the one-time leader of the I.L.E.A. in London and one-time hero of Lewisham, North. He ought now to be pleading for his old friends and asking why they are not represented fairly. But here he is, the newcomer, the nouveau riche, one might say—new friends, new ideas.
I must express my gratitude to you, Mr. Gourlay, for allowing a certain amount of straying perhaps on the Amendment, but it is only right to point out that in all these arguments that we have had the only thing; that has motivated the party opposite is that they are feeling a bit cheated. They have not proved their case, and I will tell the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone why.
I have been talking only about London, where my right hon. Friend has been unfair to us. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have not once examined in great detail any of the changes in the Bill to indicate any advantage to the party opposite. It may well be that if we have changes in Birmingham that might benefit us. Let me take the Committee into my confidence and say what some of our party organisers have been saying outside.
The Bill means a loss to Labour in London of at least seven seats. Everyone


knows that. Some of our people outside are saying that we are prepared to accept that because we think that under the Boundary Commission's changes Labour would benefit in many parts of England. But my right hon. Friend has stopped it. I often wonder whose side he is on. He reminds me of the late Herbert Morrison who, way back in 1948, was being attacked by the party opposite for gerrymandering.

Mr. Hogg: It was the previous Member for Ebbw Vale who referred to the late Herbert Morrison as a third-rate Tammany Hall boss.

Mr. Michael Foot: Fifth-rate.

Mr. Hamling: All I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that I do not know where he would have rated in the scale.

Mr. Roebuck: Would my hon. Friend adopt the words of another hon. Member that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) would make a good mayor in Marylebone in a lousy year?

Mr. Hamling: Can we now come back to Herbert Morrison? I was saying that he was attacked by the party opposite for gerrymandering in 1948, and yet everyone knows that he was blamed for our electoral defeat in 1951. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was Chuter Ede."] Herbert was Leader of the House. I can remember Herbert coming to us and arguing in favour of those changes, saying that they were fair. Herbert Morrison was blamed for our defeat in 1951. We were attacked for gerrymandering, and yet when the votes were counted in 1951 the party opposite won the election with fewer votes than we got, and that was as a result of the electoral changes brought about by a Labour Government.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: It is quite true that the Labour Party did win more votes in 1951 than the Conservative Party, but there were four safe Tory constituencies with large electorates which returned candidates unopposed, and so the point the hon. Member is making is largely bogus.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Member is right about the four constituencies, but

he will also remember the vast reserve of Tory votes in Northern Ireland, and that takes away from his point.
The point I was making was that when the history of this Bill is written it will be shown that my right hon. Friend is giving the party opposite a certain bonus in London—of seven seats. Nobody has argued at any stage of this debate, either tonight or previously, what disadvantage the party opposite is suffering in the rest of England.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend referred earlier to Bexley and Sidcup. He is aware that the Bexley Heath seat occupied by the Leader of the Opposition becomes rather marginal and that there is some suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman may be moving to Sidcup. I wonder if my hon. Friend would give his views on that sort of conduct.

Mr. Hamling: I would never dream of commenting on the political wanderings of any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I have been waiting for a very long time for the hon. Member to come to the Amendment. I wonder, Mr. Gourlay, if you could ingeniously help him to do that.

The Deputy Chairman: I understand that the hon. Member is adducing reasons to show why he is opposed to the Amendment.

Mr. Hamling: I am grateful. Mr. Gourlay, for your protection—though why one Royal Marine should require protection from another, heaven knows.
I was just saying in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) that I would not deem it my duty or responsibility to comment on the political wanderings of the Leader of the Opposition.
I return to the point I was making and on which I was concluding. We are giving the party opposite a sure and certain bonus in London.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Where?

Mr. Hamling: Newham, Tower Hamlets, Southwark—seven or eight. Look up the figures and see. What we do not know and what has not been proved in this debate by the party opposite is that it will suffer any disadvantage in the rest


of the country. Hon. Members opposite have not proved this. They have not proved this in detail. What is quite possible—and this is the case I have argued—is that if we were to follow the Boundaries Commission there might be gains in certain places for us too. I think of places like Hitchin, where Labour is under-represented by seats. I think of Buckingham.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Buckingham, yes.

Mr. Hamling: think of places like Epping—a great many large constituencies represented by only one Labour man or Labour woman and where, if there were redistribution, we would profit by an increase in the number of our seats. I am glad to have one Member of the Opposition agreeing with me and showing that he is an honest man in this debate. There he is, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).

Hon. Members: Who is this phenomenon?

Mr. Hamling: It is about time we had a few more like the hon. Member.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he replies to or intervenes in the debate, as he might wish to at some stage of the morning, will really come down to the fact that there are certain advantages for the Conservatives in the Bill and that the disadvantages to them are by no means certain.

Mr. David Mitchell: An illuminating remark was made by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), who suggested that if the Conservatives were in power they would have held up the implementation of the Boundary Commission's Report if it was to their political disadvantage. My answer is simply that were that to be so I would not wish to be associated with such a party.

Mr. Gardner: I was not saying anything of the kind. I was saying that the boot would be on the other foot, that if the Boundary Commission's recommendations had been in favour of the Labour Party now the Opposition's arguments would be very different. I was not talking about a Conservative Government at all.

Mr. David Mitchell: Even if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, the sense of what he said was said by several hon. Members opposite during the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members are well aware that points in that sense have been conveyed a number of times during the debate.
I wish to draw attention to Amendment No. 33, which concerns the constituency of Basingstoke. It is very carefully drafted precisely to follow the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, the whole recommendations and nothing but the recommendations. Naturally, there was a certain temptation to suggest other boundaries which would be to the political advantage of my party, but in framing the Amendment I did not allow myself to fall to that temptation. It is a pity that the Home Secretary has not resisted that temptation elsewhere.
The Basingstoke constituency now has an electorate of 83.000. When the 18year-old voters come on the register it will have an electorate of 92,000. So it will take more than four times as many electors in that part of Hampshire to influence the result of a General Election and to return a Member of Parliament as in many other parts of the country, and by no possible means can that be considered a fair form of representation of the people in that part of Hampshire.
The town of Basingstoke is receiving from London 11,500 overspill houses, which is bringing into the constituency between 3,000 and 4,000 overspill population per year. A Member of Parliament with this sort of change has a substantial amount of Parliamentary work. I do not complain about that. Some hon. Members on both sides talk of receiving 20 or 30 letters a week from their constituents. From the fact that I get 130 to 150 one can realise just how much the difference in work load is to Members.
My point is that some members of the public are fortunate in having very few electors to elect one Member of Parliament, and one Member of Parliament is able to devote his time to 18,000 or 20,000 electors. It is unfair on the electorate when a Member of Parliament has to spread his efforts over some 80,000 or 90,000 people, and when it is


in defiance of the independent Boundary Commission one has just cause to complain.
2.15 a.m.
The Home Secretary's case has rested on the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. He has said that he does not want to implement the findings of the Boundary Commission because the Redcliffe-Maud proposals will be in contravention of them. But the chief proposal of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission affecting my constituency is to take Andover and Andover Rural District out of area No. 52 and put them into area No. 57, which is almost exactly the proposal of the Boundary Commission for the largest transfer of population in my constituency.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. David Mitchell: Therefore, one of the main arguments put forward by the Home Secretary does not apply to the largest change proposed by the Boundary Commission. As several of my colleagues have shown, there are constituencies which are not affected by the Redcliffe-Maud Report, but in spite of this the recommendations of the Boundary Commission are not to be implemented.
If the Home Secretary were genuine in his expressions to the Committee he would have allowed a free vote tonight. If he were genuine in what he is seeking to do he would have accepted the findings of the independent Boundary Commission and he would have accepted and been bound by the proposals of the other side.
The Home Secretary is also Treasurer of the Labour Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members express surprise. I do not suppose for one moment that he is incompetent in that capacity, and he must have had reported to him the consequences of his actions on the likely prospects. Already in some parts of the country the Labour Party is saying that it will gain as a result of this—

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. David Mitchell: Hon. Members opposite may not like it. I will give an

example from my local paper for last week, where the chairman of the local Labour Party is reported as saying that he anticipated raising his own constituency next time—and that is in the same week as the Home Secretary is gerrymandering the Boundary Commission—[Interruption.]

Mr. Hogg: I notice that it is feeding time for sea lions at the zoo! As the Guillotine is about to fall, I thought it might not be wholly wrong to make one or two general observations about the group of Amendments which we are discussing. We began well by discussing the Amendments, but the last four or five speeches have turned the debate into a Second Reading debate. That is not what we had intended or hoped by these Amendments.
This group of Amendments originally to be taken together and subsequently at our request divided into two by the Chair was designed to deal with two quite separate propositions. The first which we have been discussing was designed to deal with the problem of the over-sized constituency and our Amendments were designed to restore the Boundary Commission Report in relation to those over-sized constituencies.
The second, which we shall not now reach, was designed to deal with a totally different proposition, namely the periphery of London. We based our case there not on the size of the constituency but on the proposition that if the London recommendations themselves were to be implemented by the Government, which is the line upon which the Bill has proceeded, the correct thing in making the necessary peripheral adjustments would have been to implement an area of the Boundary Commission's Reports instead of making what we think is a botched job of some selected constituencies on the periphery.
It had been our intention, had this occurred, to discuss in detail the London constituencies and their relationship to the periphery. We did not do so only because that set of Amendments is not under discussion at present. It is for that reason and that reason only that I do not reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Ham-ling), with which I differed in almost every respect.
When we came to discuss the oversized constituencies in the area outside London and its periphery, we were not on this series of Amendments concerned precisely to argue—although we have done so on Second Reading and no doubt will be doing so in a few hours' time on Third Reading—which party, if either, would gain as a result of implementation of the Boundary Commission's Report. We consider that to be something more appropriate to Second Reading and Third Reading debates.
We were concerned to show two things. First, that a gross injustice was being done to certain of the electors of this country, whichever party gained, by not implementing the Boundary Commission's Report. Although I feel as strongly as any of my hon. Friends that we are being cheated out of a number of seats, the ground on which we base our case is not the disadvantages to the Conservative Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but the gross injustice to the constituencies concerned.
The second point which we were seeking to bring out was that having dealt, as we did in the previous set of Amendments, with Wales and Scotland, we wished to show in relation to the groups of constituencies which we had selected as showing over-size as a result of fifteen years non-implementation of any boundary changes that the excuse about Redcliffe-Maud and local government reorganisation is threadbare and nonexistent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) showed it in relation to Leicester. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) established it in relation to the Bristol area. My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) established it in relation to the Liverpool area—

Mr. Heffer: Oh, no, he did not.

Mr. Hogg: —including Huyton—

Mr. Heffer: That is the last thing that he did.

Mr. Hogg: —which seems to be a sore point with hon. Members opposite—those, at least, who can pronounce it. My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn established it again in relation to Manchester. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)

established it in relation to Birmingham and the West Midlands area generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) established it in relation to West Sussex. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) established it relation to Surrey, even if it had not already appeared from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) established it in relation to Hampshire. In each case, it has been established—

Mr. Howie: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: Not at the moment. I am half-way through a sentence. In each case, it has been established in detail in relation to each group of Amendments that the Boundary Commission's Report could have been implemented with a greater realism than any status quo will possess for a large number of years, whatever is done as a result of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals.

Mr. Howie: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, I am not ready for the hon. Gentleman yet. The argument based upon the alleged necessity to await Redcliffe-Maud in all the great urban areas of the country is wholly untrue and contrary to fact.
When the right hon. Gentleman talked airily of 94 constituencies and what he called the ripple effect and the smaller fleas, as he delicately put it, beyond the immediate ripple, he failed to make out any detailed case. Knowing as one does and as he happened to show in relation to some of the constituencies which he mentioned that some of these infringements of the boundaries deal with pockets of voters of 500 or even less, he failed to establish any serious case on the scale necessary to justify a departure from the constitutional principle.
When hon. Gentlemen apposite seek to comfort themselves with sophistical argument that we in 1951 obtained majorities in this House on a minority of votes, the fact remains that we did it in accordance with existing law and not by fiddling and, when we got into power, we implemented the Boundary Commission Reports which ex hypothesi, if the argument was true, were to our disadvantage,


by doing exactly what the Statute told us to do. Although a parliamentary majority, under the Statute, can either reject or amend the Boundary Commission Report, that argument is dealt with in the Statute, and it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to do his duty and to bring forward draft Orders in Council so that the House of Commons could pronounce upon them. That is why we support these Amendments and resent the right hon. Gentleman's gerrymander.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. The Business Committee Resolution, which was adopted by the House earlier today, lays down in paragraph 4(1)

The Chairman: Order. The time expiring under the Business Resolution is at 2.33. If the hon. Gentleman goes on with his point of order he will deprive the Committee of that further three minutes.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman let the cat out of the bag, amid all his protestations, when he gave vent to the sentiment that they believed that they were being cheated out of a number of seats. That is the case that the Opposition make. They hide it behind a great deal of constitutional persiflage, but in fact some psephologist has convinced them that

they will lose seats if the Boundary Commission's recommendations are not accepted. That is all that they are interested in and that is what the whole debate is about. Everything else is sheer camouflage, except when it is not a personal vendetta against the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

I never expected to hear, even from the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), that the Amendment was not dictated by any dislike of the people of Huyton, but out of spite—that was his word—against the Prime Minister. That is the level of conversation and language to which some of us have become accustomed throughout the whole debate. I deplore it. I do not resent it; I take it whence it comes.

The plain truth is that we have established our case—[Interruption.]—that it is impossible to isolate the large urban areas from the effects of a general redistribution and that the Redcliffe-Maud Report is the best way of proceeding to ensure that local government and Parliamentary boundaries are established on a a stable basis for some time to come. That is the case which we must get across to the country and which is now made out.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 277.

Division No. 323.]
AYES
[2.34 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Astor, John
Bryan, Paul
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Doughty, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Drayson, G. B.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bullus, Sir Eric
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Sir John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Batsford, Brian
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Carlisle, Mark
Emery, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Channon, H. P. G.
Eyre, Reginald


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Chataway, Christopher
Farr, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fisher, Nigel


Biffen, John
Clark, Henry
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Walter
Fortescue, Tim


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cooke, Robert
Foster, Sir John


Black, Sir Cyril
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Blaker, Peter
Cordle, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Corfield, F. V.
Gibson-Watt, David


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Crowder, F. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Glyn, Sir Richard


Braine, Bernard
Currie, G. B. H.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Brewis, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goodhart, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dance, James
Gower, Raymond




Grieve, Percy
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McMaster, Stanley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gurden, Harold
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Royle, Anthony


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hall-Davis, A. G. F,
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maddan, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott, Nicholas


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maude, Angus
Sharples, Richard


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Silvester, Frederick


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hay, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Hese1tine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Higgins, Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Stodart, Anthony


Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hill, J. E. B.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hordern, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Temple, John M.


Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Tilney, John


Hunt, John
Nott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Waddington, David


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Waiker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jopling, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walters, Dennis


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Peyton, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R, Bonner
Wiggin, A. W.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kirk, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, J. M. L.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lambton, Viscount
Pym, Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Lane, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wright, Esmond


Lawler, Wallace
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wylie, N. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Longden, Gilbert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lubbock, Eric
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Jasper More and Mr. Anthony Grant.


MacArthur, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey





NOES


Abse, Leo
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Delargy, Hugh


Albu, Austen
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dell, Edmund


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dempsey, James


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Archer, Peter
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dobson, Ray


Ashley, Jack
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Driberg, Tom


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Carmichael, Neil
Dunnett, Jack


Bacon, Rt, Hn. Alice
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Barnett, Joel
Chapman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Baxter, William
Concannon, J. D.
Edelman, Maurice


Beaney, Alan
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bence, Cyril
Crawshaw, Richard
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cronin, John
Ellis, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
English, Michael


Binns, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ennals, David


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Ensor, David


Blackburn, F.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Faulds, Andrew


Boston, Terence
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fernyhough, E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fletcher,Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islington, E.)


Boyden, James
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Foley, Maurice







Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)


Forrester, John
McBride, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Fowler, Gerry
McCann, John
Rankin, John


Freeson, Reginald
MacColl, James
Rees, Merlyn


Galpern, Sir Myer
Macdona1d, A. H.
Richard, Ivor


Gardner, Tony
McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Garrett, W. E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackie, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Gregory, Arnold
Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Roebuck, Roy


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ryan, John


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Manuel, Archie
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hamling, William
Mapp, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hannan, William
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silverman, Julius


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Skeffington, Arthur


Haseldine, Norman
Maxwell, Robert
Slater, Joseph


Hattersley, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher
Small, William


Hazell, Bert
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Henig, Stanley
Millan, Bruce
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hilton, W. S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Taverne, Dick


Hooley, Frank
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Molloy, William
Thornton, Ernest


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moonman, Eric
Tinn, James


Howie, W.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tomney, Frank


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Varley, Eric G.


Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Murray, Albert
Wallace, George


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Neal, Harold
Watkins, David (Consett)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Oakes, Cordon
Weitzman, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oram, Albert E.
Whitlock, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham. S.)
Orme, Stanley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Judd, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Clifford (Abertilery)


Kelley, Richard
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Kenyon, Clifford
Palmer, Arthur
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'tcr &amp; Chatham)
Pannell, Rt, Hn. Charles
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Park, Trevor
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lawson, George
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Winnick, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pavitt, Laurence
Woof, Robert


Lee, Rt. Hn, Jennie (Cannock)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lee, John (Reading)
Pentland, Norman



Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg



Lomas, Kenneth
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Proceedings in Committee on the Bill having continued for four hours and thirty-three minutes after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to he concluded.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 235.

Division No. 324.]
AYES
[2.43 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Alldritt, Walter
Ashley, Jack


Albu, Austen
Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Archer, Peter
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)




Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.
Mayhew, Christopher


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bagier, Gordon A, T.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, John


Barnett, Joel
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mikardo, Ian


Baxter, William
Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce


Beaney, Alan
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Molloy, William


Binns, John
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Moonman, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Boston, Terence
Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland


Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boyden, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Murray, Albert


Bradley, Tom
Haseldine, Norman
Neal, Harold


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hattersley, Roy
Newens, Stan


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hazell, Bert
Oakes, Cordon


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Henig, Stanley
Oram, Albert E.


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Carmichael, Neil
Howie, W.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Palmer, Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, Trevor


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Cronin, John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pavitt, Laurence


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Delargy, Hugh
Kenyon, Clifford
Richard, Ivor


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dewar, Donald
Lawson, George
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, John (Reading)
Roebuck, Roy


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn, William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lipton, Marcus
Ryan, John


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lomas, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCann, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, John
MacColl, James
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, David
McGuire, Michael
Skeffington, Arthur


Ensor, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Slater, Joseph


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackle, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fletcher,Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islington,E.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Taverne, Dick


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Manuel, Archie
Tomney, Frank


Forrester, John
Mapp, Charles
Tuck, Raphael


Fowler, Gerry
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Varley, Eric G.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gardner, Tony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Maxwell, Robert








Wallace, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Winnick, David


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Woof, Robert


Weitzman, David
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)



Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whitlock, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Wilkins, W. A.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)





NOES


Alison. Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Astor, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Monro, Hector


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard
Montgomery, Fergus


Batsford, Brian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
More, Jasper


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Black, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley


Body, Richard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brewis, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peel, John


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bryan, Paul
Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pounder, Rafton


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Phillip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chataway, Christopher
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoake)


Cordle, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Corfield, F. V.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Currie, G. B. H.
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dance, James
Lambton, Viscount
Silvester, Frederick


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Wallace
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Doughty, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Stodart, Anthony


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lubbock, Eric
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliott,R,W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Temple, John M.


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Tilney, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.



Marten, Neil








van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard
Woodnutt, Mark


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Worsley, Marcus


Vickers, Dame Joan
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wright, Esmond


Waddington, David
Wiggin, A. W.
Wylie, N. R.


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Younger, Hn. George


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



Walters, Dennis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ward, Dame Irene
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. Reginald Lyre and Mr. Anthony Royle.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order

(Sittings of the House, (Suspended Sittings)), That the Proceedings of this day's Sitting be suspended.—[Mr. Harper.]

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 236.

Division No. 325.
AYES
[2.55 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Dewar, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Albu, Austen
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dobson, Ray
Howie, W.


Alldritt, Walter
Doig, Peter
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Anderson, Donald
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Archer, Peter
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edelman, Maurice
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Baxter, William
Ellis, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Beaney, Alan
English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bence, Cyril
Ennals, David
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ensor, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Binns, John
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Judd, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Booth, Albert
Fletcher,Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islington,E.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Boston, Terence
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lawson, George


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Boyden, James
Foley, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bradley, Tom
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ford, Ben
Lee, John (Reading)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Forrester, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fowler, Gerry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Gardner, Tony
Loughlin, Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Garrett, W. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
McBride, Neil


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McCann, John


Cant, R. B.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacColl, James


Carmichael, Neil
Gregory, Arnold
Macdonald, A. H.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McGuire, Michael


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Chapman, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackle, John


Conlan, Bernard
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackintosh, John p.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert


Cronin, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamling, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hannan, William
McNamara, J. Kevin


Dalyell, Tam
Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Haseldine, Norman
Manuel, Archie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mapp, Charles


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hazell, Bert
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marquand, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Henig, Stanley
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Delargy, Hugh
Hilton, W. S.
Maxwell, Robert


Dell, Edmund
Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Christopher


Dempsey, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert




Mendelson, John




Mikardo, Ian
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Millan, Bruce
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Thornton, Ernest


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Price, William (Rugby)
Tomney, Frank


Molloy, William
Probert, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Moonman, Eric
Rankin, John
Urwin, T. W.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rees, Merlyn
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Wallace, George


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Murray, Albert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Neal, Harold
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Weitzman, David


Newens, Stan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Roebuck, Boy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ogden, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Whitlock, William


O'Malley, Brian
Ryan, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Oram, Albert E.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Oswald, Thomas
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Page, Dereh (King's Lynn)
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Palmer, Arthur
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Slater, Joseph
Winnick, David


Park, Trevor
Small, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Pavitt, Laurence
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. Charles R. Morris and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cordle, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfleld, F. V.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Costain, A. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Astor, John
Crouch, David
Hastings, Stephen


Awdry, Daniel
Crowder, F. P.
Hay, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Currie, G. B. H.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heseltine, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Dance, James
Higgins, Terence L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hiley, Joseph


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hill, J. E. B.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Doughty, Charles
Holland, Philip


Biffen, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hordern, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornby, Richard


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Eden, Sir John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Black, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hunt, John


Blaker, Peter
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Emery, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Body, Richard
Errington, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fisher, Nigel
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Braine, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Brewis, John
Fortescue, Tim
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Foster, Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kershaw, Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gibson-Watt, David
Kimball, Marcus


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bullus, Sir Eric
Glyn, Sir Richard
Lambton, Viscount


Burden, F. A.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gower, Raymond
Lawler, Wallace


Carlisle, Mark
Grant, Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grieve, Percy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Channon, H. P. G.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Longden, Gilbert


Chataway, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Lubbock, Eric


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacArthur, Ian


Clark, Henry
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitztoy


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McMaster, Stanley


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)




McNair-Wilson, Michael







McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tapsell, Peter


Maddan, Martin
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor,Edward'M.(G'gow Cathcart)


Marten, Neil
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maude, Angus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.


Mawby, Ray
Prior, J. M. L.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Pym, Francis
Tilney, John


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
van Straubenzee, W, R.


Miscampbell, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Monro, Hector
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Waddington, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


More, Jasper
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ridsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Ward, Dame Irene


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Weatherill Bernard


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Murton, Oscar
Royle, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wiggin, A. W.


Neave, Airey
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Nott, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Onslow, Cranley
Sharples, Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Worsley, Marcus


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Silvester, Frederick
Wright, Esmond


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wylie, N. R.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Younger, Hn. George


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)



Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Peel, John
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Timothy Kitson and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Percival, Ian
Stodart, Anthony



Peyton, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

EMPLOYMENT (MERSEYSIDE)

Motion and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

3.5 a.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I regard this brief debate as one of the utmost importance to Merseyside and its future development. Merseyside has long had a problem of unemployment. It is not new to the present Government, who have done more than most since the war to channel employment to the area. It is estimated that 51,000 additional jobs have accrued to the area through the use of industrial development certificates since 1964.
Nevertheless, on 9th June, 1969, overall unemployment on Merseyside was 26,799 compared with 24,859 in June, 1968. Merseyside has a 3·8 per cent. unemployment compared with 2·2 per cent. for the North-West and an average of 2·2 per cent. for the country as a whole.
The situation for building operatives is particularly acute. In the construction industry on Merseyside on 9th June, there were 5,056 unemployed compared with 3,500 in June, 1968, while on 4th June there were only 314 unfilled vacancies notified to employment exchanges.
The position is seen to be even worse when the figures are broken down to show the position of skilled workers. There were 1,657 unemployed craftsmen, of whom 272 were joiners, and 2,704 unskilled, while there were 663 in other categories, including foremen and semiskilled. I personally know joiners and other skilled workers who have been forced to leave the area, so that the numbers do not give the whole story.
Some of those affected have been out of work for months rather than weeks, and the position is serious. It is particularly criminal that skilled labour should be left without employment. I regard all unemployment as a crime and, although benefits are higher, it should be understood that many building operatives do not enjoy the higher benefits because of the nature of their employment. Yet Merseyside is a development area. What is happening is that we are running hard to create employment and finding ourselves basically on the same spot.
Why has this situation come about? I believe that there are a number of reasons. First, the application of selective employment tax to the building industry has led to a slowing down of construction work. Secondly, the general squeeze on credit and investment bears particularly on the building industry and has led to the holding back and postponement of a number of projects
Thirdly, the housing programme has been slowed down by the Liverpool Corporation and other local authorities in the area. I mean by that that the numbers of houses and flats being built has not substantially increased and remains at approximately the level of 3 million per annum, particularly in Liverpool. Fourthly, some of the large outside contractors are bringing in workers from outside of the area, something which is inexplicable to the Merseyside workers and which causes a great deal of anger and frustration.
I want to quote a letter I received from Mr. W. Crichton. Secretary of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives in that area, in which he says:
It will be appreciated that the need for houses and other building trade work required in the area and the unemployed craftsman, semi-skilled and unskilled, is a luxury which the country cannot afford, and if used in a proper way the housing needs of the City could be dealt with in a more urgent and efficient manner. It should also be noted that in consequence of the policies being carried out by the present local authority the labour force employed by the direct labour department of approximately 2,400 operatives is being allowed to run down and they are receiving no further contracts. This is also going to add a considerable number to the already high percentage of unemployed. It would appear to me that some type of inquiry should be held when a situation of this sort is allowed to develop, at a time when Cabinet Ministers and such emphasise the need for greater efficiency and productivity.
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed there. Liverpool should be stepping up its housing programme. The subsidies provided under the Housing Act are as follows: in 1963–64 the city received £1,328,576, in 1967–68 the subsidies were £2,058,923, and in 1968–69 they were £2,433,615. That is over £1 million more which is being paid in subsidies by the Government and therefore the building programme should be leaping ahead. Yet we see that there is far too much pulling down in the city, far too many open spaces and not enough building taking place.
A great deal of unnecessary hardship is being caused to good working people which could be avoided. Employers will not train apprentices because of S.E.T., and this means a loss in the future to our country and to my area in particular. Workers are being forced to dig up their

roots and move to other parts of the country when work should be available for them in the area from which they come. The Liverpool and district building operative is a hard-working, keen, talented man and is prepared always to give of his best. It is true that the building operative on Merseyside wants his just rewards, but I see nothing wrong in that. In return he is prepared to give his best to the industry.
I want to make the following proposals. First, if the local authorities fail to step up house building the Government should step in and augment what is already being done. This could be achieved through a National Building Corporation, and I hope that the Government will take note of this proposal. Liverpool and district needs houses. The people of the area are crying out for homes and every building operative should be fully employed. When one realises that in Liverpool alone we have a waiting list which, although now diminished somewhat, nevertheless has many thousand names on it, one appreciates the great need for housing.
Secondly, the Government must end S.E.T. for the building trade. I have argued here before that I see no point in it. The building trade is not a service industry. It is an industry of the utmost importance, and I believe that S.E.T. must be brought to an end for the building trade. If the Government say that they cannot bring it to an end throughout the country, nevertheless I think that they could bring it to an end in areas of high unemployment like Merseyside.
There should also be a stepping-up of the road and cross-river programme on Merseyside. We all recognise that communications are essential for the wellbeing of Merseyside. Those communications—new roads, bridges and the tunnels that are required—would give the people in the industry the employment they need and would also help to bring in other employment. We cannot make Merseyside a really prosperous area unless we have the proper communications system.
I demand that this matter be treated as an emergency. The number of 5,037 construction workers unemployed on Merseyside is far too high. I know the misery that this means to those working people. I was a construction worker for


many years in the area and I know what it is to be out of work. If men are out of work for some months—and some of these workers have been out of work for a few months, some as long as six months —they begin to lose confidence in their ability. They are not bad workers. Many of them are highly skilled. We cannot afford to have people in this day and age suffering this sort of thing.
We need on Merseyside homes, hospitals, schools, more factories, roads and a better communications system. We have the unemployed workers. We have the job to do, and I am asking that the Government should do everything possible to bring what I think is a serious situation to an end, give our people employment and, at the same time, help the general prosperity of Merseyside.

3.18 a.m.

Mr. Ernest Marples: I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that all is not well on Merseyside for the construction industry. I intervene only for three minutes because, first, I have a general knowledge of the building and civil engineering industry; secondly, my constituency is concerned; but, thirdly, I have a particular knowledge of Merseyside because, as Minister of Transport, I arranged the second Mersey tunnel, which was to go from my constituency of Wallasey to Liverpool.
I agree with the hon. Member that something must be done on Merseyside, especially regarding the labour situation and the big building contractors, but I disagree with him in his diagnosis. To prove my point, I would like to refer to the tunnel, which was started on the Liverpool side in June, 1967, and was due to be finished in December, 1969a period of two and a half years—but so far, in spite of all the labour being there, it is six months late, there has been a dispute with the building workers and the report is that the trade unions and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors resolved the dispute and gave an award in favour of the contractor but the men still went on strike and kept out of work. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that something should be done, but I do not think it will be unless we have an inquiry into what is wrong, with the bad name Merseyside is getting for strikes. I am not saying for a moment

that that bad name is justified, but it is there, and as long as it is there major contractors will shy away from that area, or they will have to pay, as they did with one of the tunnel contracts, a 95 per cent. bonus on the basic wage.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he would come with me to see the local people, the unions and the employers' federation, to see if we can find logically the reason why things are going sour in the building industry and the civil engineering industry on Merseyside. If he will do that I shall be delighted to help him and to be as constructive as I possibly can. I assure him his diagnosis is wrong, but at the same time his anxiety is well justified.

3.21 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will, of course, determine for himself whether or not he responds to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples).
I want to say straightaway that I appreciate my hon. Frend's deep concern over the unemployment problem on Merseyside. There is one thing I would like him to understand, that big as this problem appears to be it is not as big as the problem in the area which I represent. If the rest of the development areas had done as well as Merseyside development area has done the total number of unemployed today would be much smaller.
My hon. Friend ought to recognise, too, that the Government themselves appreciated that Merseyside still needed help, in the sense that although the Hunt Committee recommended that Merseyside should become an intermediate area the Government, nevertheless, decided that it should remain a development area, with all the advantages which accrue from being so scheduled. I appreciate, too, the waste of human resources, particularly skilled human resources, if we have able workers unemployed. It cannot be said that the Government are being indifferent to this. Let us consider the money which has been poured into the Merseyside development area. We started with a figure of £8 million, roughly, in 1965–66. In the year 1968–69 that figure is likely to be between £70 million and


£80 million. This gives some idea of the concern which the Government have about the general economic well-being of that area.
I know that my hon. Friend, because of his past experiences, feels very deeply about this problem, but I hope that he will appreciate that it is a problem with which I have lived all my life. Like him, I, too, will never rest content till every man who is able and willing to work finds himself able to follow a job and earn his living in a civilised and a dignified manner. I hope that my hon. Friend will also appreciate that the unemployment problem we have today is a vastly different problem from that of the days when he was a young man. Then, unemployment was not only the denial of the right to work, but it was accompanied by a harsh, brutal poverty. What ever he has said about the present Administration, it must be acknowledged that, at a time when great technological changes were taking place, we tried, as it were, to cushion the blow which those who became its victims felt. Our redundancy payments and wage-related benefits have helped to make life a little more congenial than it would otherwise have been, had that social legislation not been passed.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not in a position tonight to give him any satisfactory answer about S.E.T. If he wants a specific answer, he has been here long enough to know that the question must be addressed to another Minister. Likewise on his concern about better communications, better roads and an improved crossing between the two banks of the river, again, much as I should like to think that I had responsibility, it is not something that lies within my power, and if he wants a satisfactory answer he must ask another Minister.
As to the large numbers of unemployed persons that my hon. Friend mentioned, I should point out to him, because it is very important, that it should be remembered that, although the figure, looked at over a period of years, seems to be almost identical, with little variation, when I tell him that 71·8 per cent. of them have been unemployed for less than 26 weeks and 42.8 per cent. have been unemployed for less than eight weeks it gives some idea of the change-

over that is taking place in the labour force. It is true that 17·8 per cent. of the older people are over 55, but even that is lower than the national average.
As to the future industrial expansion of Merseyside, there are, according to information supplied by the developers, 24,000 jobs in prospect, including 15,000 for males, over the next four years in authorised new buildings and existing buildings in the Merseyside development area and a further 5,600 jobs, including 3,800 for males, in the new towns of Skelmersdale and Winsford, where firms going there qualify for development incentive.
In 1970 alone the motor vehicle, chemical and allied and engineering and textile industries are expected to create more than 7,000 new jobs, of which about 70 per cent. are for males, in 20 separate expansions already known to the Department. The bulk of the jobs will be for skilled and semi-skilled operatives. I am sure that that expansion alone will create new work in the construction industry.
I do not know whether it would be possible for the wishes of my hon. Friend to be met in respect of a National Building Corporation, but anyone knowing the housing problem of Liverpool and the desperate need of countless thousands of people for decent homes must feel rather dismayed that at a time when the house building programme of the local authority ought to be going up it appears from the figures available to us that it is going down. If the house-building programme of the local authority, far from going up is going down, that in itself is bound to add to unemployment in the very skills to which my hon. Friend referred.
I would like to mention what has been done by the Government about the dispersal of Government offices. In line with our policy of dispersal and regional development, Merseyside has been chosen to receive large numbers of civil service jobs. Two new major offices are being allocated to Bootle. The national giro, which opened in October 1968, is now employing 2,360 people and may ultimately employ about 3,000. An Inland Revenue Schedule E computer centre is expected to come into operation in 1971, and that will provide about 2,500 jobs between 1971 and 1973. The work of over 450 posts in my Department is due to be transferred from Watford to Runcorn, starting in 1970, and in addition


moves by the Board of Trade Investment Grants Department, the Inland Revenue and the Charity Commission are bringing more than 400 extra jobs to Merseyside between now and 1970.
If we look at the problem in Merseyside that faced previous Governments, one thing that we can certainly say is that our regional development policy has been successful in Merseyside. Whilst it is true that in most development areas unemployment has remained at more than double the national average, and in the North-East well over double, in Merseyside it is only 1 ½ times the national average. I know that my hon. Friend will never be satisfied with that, but we are very anxious to improve the situation. It is indicative of our anxiety that we disregarded the Hunt Committee's Report and allowed Merseyside to remain scheduled, and that we have decided that Merseyside shall have available all the incentives that come from our regional policy.
My hon. Friend will also recognise that in the social legislation that we have introduced we have removed the worst evils of unemployment. He, like me, will have marched behind banners, the most prominent of which was "work or maintenance". We are often accused by

right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite of having introduced social benefits to the point where we have taken away the incentive to work. I believed in the principle that if we could not provide a man with a job we had a moral obligation to maintain him in something like decency. By and large we have achieved that, but that does not mean that we as a Government, or any of us as individuals, must remain satisfied so long as there is any man capable of work who is denied the right to work.
I assure my hon. Friend that, no matter how often he raises this matter, he will never offend me, because I am at one with him, and I think I can speak for the whole of the Government when I say that we want to see Merseyside, and every development area, sharing the same measure of prosperity that the more prosperous areas of the country are already enjoying.

The debate having continued for half an hour, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at twenty-five minutes to Four o'clock a.m., till Ten o'clock this day, pursuant to Order.